Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2014 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission
(Case T‑293/11)
Competition — Administrative proceeding — Decision to request information — Necessity of the information requested — Duty to state reasons — Proportionality
1. Acts of the institutions — Notification — Irregularities — Effects — Suspension of the period within which an action must be brought (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2) TFEU) (see para. 35)
2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Rules on languages — Request for information — Addressee — Registered office in a non-member country — Relationship with a Member State — Official language of that Member State (Council Regulation No 1/1958, Art. 3) (see para. 36)
3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Indication of the legal basis and the purpose of the request — Scope — Infringement of the duty to state reasons — None (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulations No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 42, 43, 50, 56)
4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Possibility of the undertaking concerned fully relying on those rights only after the sending of the statement of objections (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003) (see paras 46, 47, 51)
5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Indication of the legal basis and the purpose of the request — Requirement of a necessary link between the information requested and the infringement investigated — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Scope (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 48, 110)
6. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Limit — Observance of the principle of proportionality — Time limit for reply notified to the undertaking — Assessment of proportionality (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 61-66)
7. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Power to issue a request involving the marshalling of the information sought — Limits (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18) (see paras 71, 73)
8. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Amplification of an existing plea — Admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2)) (see paras 79, 80)
9. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Procedures — Choice to be made between a simple request for information and a decision — Observance of the principle of proportionality — Judicial review (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(1) to(3)) (see paras 81-84)
10. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Limit — Observance of the principle of proportionality — Request for information already in the possession of the Commission — Infringement of the said principle — Request for further clarification of information previously supplied — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 123-125, 127, 130)
11. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Power to request information relating to a period prior to the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union (Art. 82 EC; Art. 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(1) and (3)) (see para. 134)
Re:
| ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products). |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Holcim (Deutschland) AG and Holcim Ltd to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |