Case C‑588/20
Landkreis Northeim
v
Daimler AG
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover)
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 1 August 2022
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 101 TFEU – Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law – European Commission decision finding an infringement – Settlement procedure – Products concerned by the infringement – Specialised trucks – Household refuse collection trucks)
1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Identification of the offences subject to sanction – Identification of the products concerned by the infringement – Identification on the basis of the operative part and the statement of reasons of the Commission decision – Decision adopted following a settlement procedure – No bearing on the scope of the anticompetitive conduct
(Art. 101 TFEU; Commission Notice 2008/C 167/01, point 2)
(see paragraphs 38-53)
2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Request for information – Purpose of request not to define or specify the products concerned by the anticompetitive conduct
(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(1))
(see paragraphs 54-56)
3. Competition – Fines – Decision imposing fines – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Possibility of the Commission departing from the Guidelines for the calculation of fines
(Arts 101 and 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 6, 13 and 37)
(see paragraphs 58-66)
Résumé
In 2016, following a settlement procedure, the European Commission found (1) that, by agreeing, first, on the prices of trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) from 1997 to 2011 and, secondly, on the timing and the passing on of costs for the introduction of emission technologies required by EURO 3 to 6 standards, Daimler, MAN SE and Iveco Magirus AG (‘the undertakings concerned’) participated, with several other manufacturers of trucks, in a cartel contrary to EU rules. (2)
In the course of the settlement procedure which led to the adoption of that decision, the Commission sent the undertakings concerned a request for information in order to obtain information regarding the turnover achieved by them with products directly or indirectly linked to the cartel, with a view to determining the fine to be imposed on them. On that occasion, the Commission stated that, for the purposes of the questions posed in that request, the concept of ‘trucks’ covered neither specialised trucks nor used trucks.
Having purchased two household refuse collection trucks from Daimler in 2006 and 2007, the Landkreis Northeim (Northeim district) brought an action before the Landgericht Hannover (Hanover Regional Court, Germany) seeking compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the cartel found by the Commission. In its defence, Daimler claimed, inter alia, that, in accordance with the Commission’s request for information, household refuse collection trucks, as specialised trucks, are not concerned by the Commission decision finding the cartel.
Thus, the Hanover Regional Court referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling seeking to ascertain whether specialised trucks, in particular household refuse collection trucks, fall within the scope of the products covered by the cartel found by the Commission in the decision at issue. By answering in the affirmative, the Court addresses the question of the determination of the products covered by a cartel found in a Commission decision taken following a settlement procedure.
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary point, the Court states that the products concerned by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU found in a Commission decision are determined by reference to the agreements and activities of the cartel. It is the members of the cartel which voluntarily concentrate their anticompetitive actions on the products covered by that cartel. Therefore, in order to determine whether household refuse collection trucks are among the products covered by the cartel found in the decision at issue, reference must be made, as a matter of priority, to the operative part and to the statement of reasons for that decision.
In that regard, the Court finds that, as is apparent from the wording of the Commission decision, that decision relates to the sale of all medium trucks and heavy trucks, both as rigid trucks as well as tractor trucks, excluding trucks for military use, since the sole criterion laid down in the decision at issue for determining whether a truck falls within that decision is its weight.
Furthermore, the Court notes that there is nothing in the decision at issue to suggest that specialised trucks are excluded from the products covered by the cartel. On the contrary, it is apparent from that decision that the cartel concerned all special and standard equipment and models and all factory-fitted options offered by the respective manufacturers which have participated in that cartel. In those circumstances, the Court concludes that specialised trucks, including household refuse collection trucks, are among the products covered by the cartel found in the decision at issue.
That conclusion cannot be called into question by the request for information sent to the undertakings concerned in the context of the settlement procedure.
In that regard, the Court observes, in the first place, that although in the context of a settlement procedure the Commission may reward the cooperation of the undertakings involved in the procedure, it does not negotiate either the question of the existence of an infringement of the EU competition rules or the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, the fact that the decision at issue was adopted in the context of such a procedure has no bearing on the determination of the scope of the anticompetitive conduct.
In the second place, the Court states that the sole purpose of a request for information is to enable the Commission to obtain the information and documentation necessary to check the actual existence and scope of a specific factual and legal situation, and not to define or specify the products concerned by the anticompetitive conduct. In the present case, the request for information sent to the undertakings concerned sought solely to determine the relevant sales for the purposes of calculating the fine.
In the third and last place, the Court observes that, although the Commission enjoys a broad discretion as regards the method for calculating fines in relation to infringements of the EU competition rules, that discretion is limited, in particular, by rules of conduct which the Commission imposed on itself.
In accordance with point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, (3) the Commission may depart from the general methodology laid down in those guidelines for the setting of fines, in order to take account of the particularities of a given case or to achieve sufficient deterrence.
In that context, the Court considers that the Commission is not required, as the case may be, to take into account the maximum value of all sales concerned by the cartel in order to ensure that a fine is effective and a deterrent. That being so, when the Commission decides to rely on point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and to depart from the general methodology set out in those guidelines, it must fulfil its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU. The Commission may not depart from those guidelines in an individual case without giving reasons that are compatible with EU law.
In the present case, it is apparent from the Commission decision that it applied point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines. The Commission had taken the view that, having regard to the magnitude of the value of sales of the undertakings concerned, the objectives of deterrence and proportionality of the fine could be achieved without using the total value of the truck sales of those undertakings. Accordingly, the Commission had decided to use only a fraction of the total value of sales for the purposes of calculating the fine.
Consequently, the fact that specialised trucks were excluded from the concept of ‘trucks’ in the request for information and that the Commission decided to use only a fraction of the total value of the sales for the purposes of calculating the fine does not permit the inference that specialised trucks were not among the products covered by the cartel found in the decision at issue.