Case T‑449/14

Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 12 July 2018

1.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's power of inspection — Scope and limits — Making a copy-image of computer hard drives during an inspection — Searches in the contents of the copy-image carried out at the Commission’s premises — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(1), (2)(b) and (c) and (4))

2.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's power of inspection — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Delimitation of the geographic and temporal scope of the inspection — Absence of any date by which the inspection has to be completed — Duty to act within a reasonable time

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(2) and (4))

3.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's power of inspection — Duty of genuine cooperation with national authorities — Scope — Obligation to contact the competition authority of the Member State concerned before the adoption of the inspection decision

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20)

4.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Permissibility of an overall assessment of a body of evidence

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

5.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Probative value of voluntary statements by the main participants in a cartel with a view to benefiting from application of the leniency notice

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

6.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Proof of the beginning of the infringement

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

7.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction — Review of legality — Scope and limits – Unlimited jurisdiction strictly limited to determining the amount of the fine imposed

(Arts 101 TFEU, 261 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 23(2) and 31)

8.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Gravity of the infringement — Criteria for assessment — Obligation to take account of the actual impact on the market — No such obligation

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, point 22)

9.      Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality

(Art. 263 TFEU)

10.    Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Principle of equal treatment — Scope — Not possible for an undertaking to require non-discriminatory application of unlawful treatment granted to other undertakings concerned

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3))

1.      Making a copy-image of the hard drive of computers of an undertaking being investigated under Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 and making copies of sets of emails found on those computers fall within the scope of the Commission’s powers provided for in Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of that regulation, since they are part of the process by which the Commission operates forensic information technology, the purpose of which is to search for information relevant to the investigation in the hard drive of a computer by means of specific software.

In that regard, Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides that, in order to carry out the duties assigned to it by that regulation, the Commission may conduct all necessary inspections of undertakings and associations of undertakings. As regards the Commission’s powers to carry out an investigation, Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides, inter alia, that the officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission to conduct an inspection are empowered to examine the books and other records related to the business, irrespective of the medium on which they are stored, and to take or obtain in any form copies of or extracts from such books or records.

In so far as the copying of data stored on a digital data carrier of the undertaking under inspection is carried out during an inspection for the purposes of enabling a search, at the Commission’s premises, for documents relevant to the investigation, making such a copy falls within the scope of the powers conferred on the Commission by Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 1/2003.

Article 20(2)(b) of Regulation No 1/2003 does not provide that the examination of the books or records related to the business of undertakings under inspection must be carried out exclusively at their premises if that inspection could not be completed within the timeframe initially envisaged. It merely requires the Commission to offer, when examining documents at its premises, the same guarantees to undertakings under inspection as those required of the Commission when conducting an on-the-spot examination.

(see paras 50, 51, 53, 56, 60)

2.      The statement of reasons for an inspection decision as referred to in Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 limits the powers conferred on the Commission’s agents by Article 20(2) thereof by determining, inter alia, the geographic and temporal scope of that inspection decision.

As regards the geographic scope of the inspection decision, the fact that that decision states that the inspection could take place at ‘all premises controlled’ by the inspected undertakings does not rule out the possibility of the Commission continuing the inspection at its own premises.

As regards the temporal scope of the inspection decision, the absence of any specific date by which the inspection has to be completed does not mean that the inspection can go on indefinitely. In that regard, the Commission is required to observe a reasonable time limit in accordance with Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(see paras 65-69)

3.      Although it follows from Article 20(3) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003 that the Commission is required ‘to consult’ or ‘give notice’ ‘in good time’ to the Belgian Competition Authority when it intends to conduct an inspection at the premises of an undertaking located in Belgium, the Commission is not however obliged to contact that authority beforehand when it plans, for practical reasons, to continue at its premises in Brussels the examination of documents started in the context of an inspection conducted pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 in the territory of another Member State.

(see para. 90)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 122)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 127-131)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 132-134)

7.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 140)

8.      According to the very wording of point 22 of the 2006 Guidelines on setting fines, the Commission does not necessarily have to take account of the actual impact on the market, or the absence thereof, as an aggravating or mitigating factor for the assessment of the gravity of the infringement for the purpose of calculating the fine. It is sufficient that the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into consideration fixed by the Commission is justified by other factors capable of influencing the determination of gravity pursuant to that provision, such as the actual nature of the infringement, the combined market share of all the parties concerned and its geographic scope.

(see para. 156)

9.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 163, 164)

10.    See the text of the decision.

(see paras 174-186)