Case T‑82/13

(publication by extracts)

Panasonic Corp.

and

MT Picture Display Co. Ltd

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production — Rights of the defence — Proof of participation in the cartel — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Proportionality — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber), 9 September 2015

1.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction — Scope — Limit – Compliance with the principle of non-discrimination

(Arts 101 TFEU and 261 TFEU)

2.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Fixing of the base amount — Determination of the value of sales — Use of the best data available — Method of calculation laid down by the guidelines — Obligation on the Commission to apply the guidelines in compliance with the principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations not binding the EU courts in the same terms in the exercise of their unlimited jurisdiction

(Arts 101 TFEU and 261 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 13 and 15)

1.      As regards the review carried out by the EU judicature in respect of Commission decisions on competition matters, unlimited jurisdiction authorises the competent court to vary the contested measure, even without annulling it, by taking into account all of the factual circumstances, so as to amend, for example, the amount of the fine.

However, the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction in respect of the determination of fines cannot result in discrimination between undertakings which have participated in an agreement contrary to Article 101(1) TFEU. If the General Court intends, in the case of one of those undertakings, to depart specifically from the method of calculation followed by the Commission, which it has not called into question, it must give reasons for doing so in the judgment.

(see paras 155, 156)

2.      Pursuant to point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines, in determining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the basis of Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission is to take the value of the undertaking’s sales of goods or services to which the infringement directly or indirectly relates in the relevant geographic area within the EEA. As set out in point 15 of the 2006 Guidelines, in determining the value of sales by an undertaking, the Commission is required to take that undertaking’s best available figures.

The guidelines set out rules of practice from which the Commission may not depart in an individual case without giving reasons that are compatible with the principle of equal treatment. In adopting such rules of conduct and announcing by publishing them that they will henceforth apply to the cases to which they relate, the Commission imposes a limit on the exercise of its discretion and cannot depart from those rules without running the risk of suffering the consequences of being in breach of general principles of law, such as equal treatment or the protection of legitimate expectations.

However, although the Commission must observe the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations when it applies its self-imposed guidelines, that principle cannot bind the Courts of the European Union in the same way, in so far as they do not propose to apply a specific method of setting the amount of fines in the exercise of their unlimited jurisdiction, but consider case by case the situations before them, taking account of all the matters of fact and of law relating to those situations.

(see paras 157, 167, 168)