2017-190 report – Samsung SID Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission

people looking at the laptop

 

Court Court of Justice
Date of ruling 9 March 2017
Case name (short version) Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission
Case Citation C-615/15 P

ECLI:EU:C:2017:190

Key words Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines— Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement
Basic context Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (“Samsung”) ) unsuccessfully appealed the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015, Samsung SDI and Others v Commission (T‑84/13, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2015:611), by which the General Court dismissed their action for the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) (‘the decision at issue’) in so far as it concerned them and for the reduction of the fine which had been imposed on them.
Points arising – admissibility
Points arising – substance The first ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court breached the obligation to state reasons and infringed the Guidelines on the method of setting fines as regards the taking into account, in the calculation of the fine, of CPT sales to which the cartel did not relate

 

20  In addition, in paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court noted that there was a link of complementarity between the various instances of conduct in question and that they formed part of an overall plan, with the result that the Commission was entitled to characterise them as a single infringement. It is settled case-law that, if the different actions form part of an overall plan because their identical object distorts competition within the internal market, the Commission is entitled to impute responsibility for those actions on the basis of participation in the infringement considered as a whole (see, inter alia, judgment of 6 December 2012, Commission v Verhuizingen Coppens, C‑441/11 P, EU:C:2012:778, paragraph 41).

 

The second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court breached the obligation to state reasons and the principle of equal treatment, as regards the end date of the appellants’ participation in the CPT cartel

 

37  It must be recalled that, in paragraph 163 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that, where an undertaking has acted in breach of Article 101 TFEU, it cannot escape being penalised altogether on the ground that another undertaking has not been fined (judgments of 31 March 1993, Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission, C‑89/85, C‑104/85, C‑114/85, C‑116/85, C‑117/85 and C‑125/85 to C‑129/85, EU:C:1993:120, paragraph 197, and 11 July 2013, Team Relocations and Others v Commission, C‑444/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:464, paragraph 160).

 

38      In doing so, the General Court did not err in law. An undertaking on which a fine has been imposed for its participation in a cartel, in breach of the competition rules, cannot request the annulment or reduction of that fine, on the ground that another participant in the same cartel was not penalised in respect of a part, or all, of its participation in that cartel (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 June 2016, Evonik Degussa and AlzChem v Commission, C‑155/14 P, EU:C:2016:446, paragraphs 58 and 59).

 

The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law as regards the taking into account of CDT sales to SEC

 

51      It must be recalled that point 13 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines pursues the objective of adopting as the starting point for the calculation of the fine imposed on an undertaking an amount which reflects the economic significance of the infringement and the size of the undertaking’s contribution to it (judgment of 9 July 2015, InnoLux v Commission, C‑231/14 P, EU:C:2015:451, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).

 

52      Consequently, the concept of the ‘value of sales’, referred to in point 13 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, encompasses the sales made on the market concerned by the infringement in the EEA, and it is not necessary to determine whether those sales were genuinely affected by that infringement (judgment of 9 July 2015, InnoLux v Commission, C‑231/14 P, EU:C:2015:451, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).

 

55      Furthermore, if the appellants’ argument were accepted, an undertaking participating in an infringement would merely have to negotiate its sales with its customers outside the EEA in order to ensure that those sales would not be taken into account in the calculation of a potential fine, which would therefore be much smaller (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 September 1988, Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission, 89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85 and 125/85 to 129/85, EU:C:1988:447, paragraph 16).

 

The fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law as regards the reduction of the fine under the leniency programme

 

62      Even if the two parts of the ground of appeal were well founded, it must be borne in mind that it is not for the Court of Justice, when ruling on questions of law in the context of an appeal, to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the General Court exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for infringements of EU law. Accordingly, only inasmuch as the Court of Justice considers that the level of the fine is not merely inappropriate, but also excessive to the point of being disproportionate, would it have to find that the General Court erred in law, on account of the inappropriateness of the amount of a fine (judgment of 10 July 2014, Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission, C‑295/12 P, EU:C:2014:2062, paragraph 205 and the case-law cited).

Intervention
Interim measures
Order 1.      Dismisses the appeal;

2.      Orders Samsung to pay the costs.

Fine changed No
Case duration 16 months
Judge-rapporteur M. Vilaras
Advocate-general M. Szpunar
Notes on academic writings

Tags

Über

Picture Kiran Desai

Kiran Desai

Digest Editor

Partner, EU Competition Law Leader, EY Law, Brussels

>> Kiran’s CoRe Blog Case Digests >>

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Zusammenhängende Posts

05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:1025 LS Cable & System v Commission

Court Court of Justice Date of ruling 28 November 2019 Case name (short version) LS Cable & System v Commission Case Citation Case C-596/18 P ECLI:EU:C:2019:1025 Key words Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — Burden of proof — […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:966 Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

Court Court of Justice Date of ruling 14 November 2019 Case name (short version) Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission Case Citation C-599/18 P ECLI:EU:C:2019:966 Key words Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Proof of the infringement — Presumption […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:675 HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 24 September 2019 Case name (short version) HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission Case Citation T-105/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:675 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Manipulation of the […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:633 FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 20 September 2019 Case name (short version) FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v European Commission Case Citation T-217/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:633 Key words State aid — Market for electricity generated from renewable sources — Measures setting a minimum purchase price for electricity generated from renewable energy sources or granting a bonus to producers […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:532 Région Île-de-France v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Région Île-de-France v European Commission Case Citation T-292/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:532 Key words State aid — Aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France Region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Advantage — Selective nature […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:519 Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission Case Citation T-772/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:519 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:515 Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc v European Commission Case Citation T-762/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:515 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:514 Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling  12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. v European Commission Case Citation  T-1/16 ECLI:EU:T:2019:514 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:498 Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co.KG v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 11 July 2019 Case name (short version) Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co.KG v European Commission Case Citation T-530/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:498 Key words Competition — Cartels — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Evidence of […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:356 Recylex SA and Others v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 23 May 2019 Case name (short version) Recylex SA and Others v European Commission Case Citation T-222/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:356 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for lead-acid car battery recycling — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Coordination of purchase prices — Fines — Point 26 of […]

Nutzen Sie unseren Newsletter, um sich regelmäßig über Konferenzen, Workshops, Trainings und die  neuesten Ausgaben unserer Fachzeitschriften u.a. aus den Bereichen des europäischen Wettbewerbs- und Vergaberechte, Datenschutzrechte, Abfallrecht, Umwelt- und Planungsrecht sowie Chemikalien- und Pharmarecht zu informieren.

Verpassen Sie keine Events und Publikationen. Neuigkeiten abonnieren