Articles

Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings

Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings

Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings

02.02.2016 NL law

On 21 January 2016, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment on appeal brought by three legal entities of the Galp Energía group ("Galp"). Galp sought the annulment of a General Court ("GC") judgment partially upholding a 2007 Commission decision fining Galp for its participation in the Spanish penetration bitumen cartel. 

The Court of Justice partially set aside the GC judgment, ruling that the GC erred in law by exceeding its unlimited jurisdiction to set the amount of the fine because it relied on evidence not used in the Commission decision. Accordingly, the  Court of Justice reduced the fine imposed on Galp. Furthermore, it held that the GC breached its obligation to adjudicate cases within a reasonable time, and reaffirmed that the only effective remedy for this breach is an action for damages before the GC.

In the contested judgment, the GC ruled that the Commission had failed to establish Galp's participation in two components of the cartel: (i) a system for monitoring the implementation of the agreements and (ii) a compensation mechanism to correct deviations from the arrangements. Nevertheless, the GC concluded that Galp was aware of the participation of other members in these two components of the cartel. The GC deduced this from a statement from Galp's bitumen sales director, which had not been used by the Commission in order to establish Galp's liability. Taking into consideration Galp's awareness of the two cartel components, the GC only reduced Galp's fine by 4 per cent.

The Court of Justice ruled that the GC breached its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003, by relying on evidence not used in the contested Commission decision. When exercising their unlimited jurisdiction, EU Courts are empowered to substitute their own assessment for that of the Commission in relation to the determination of the amount of a penalty. However, the Court of Justice held that the scope of that unlimited jurisdiction is strictly limited to the amount of the fine and excludes any alteration of the constituent elements of the lawfully determined infringement. Consequently, the GC erred in law when it relied on the sales director's statement, as it was not used by the Commission to prove Galp's awareness of the two cartel components. Finding no evidence of Galp's awareness of these components in the contested decision, the Court of Justice further reduced the fine. Instead of the 4 per cent reduction granted by the GC, the Court of Justice lowered Galp's fine by 10 per cent.

Galp also argued that the GC's judgment should be annulled because the GC did not adjudicate the case within a reasonable time. The Court of Justice acknowledged that the length of the GC proceedings – five years and nine months – was excessive and could not be justified by the nature, complexity or context of the case. However, the  Court of Justice did not annul the GC judgment, considering that the only effective remedy for this breach is an action for damages before the GC.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes
  2. Court of Justice clarified the concept of a concerted practice for unilateral announcements
  3. Court of Justice dismissed Toshiba's appeal in the power transformers cartel case
  4. Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid
  5. German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

Team

Related news

24.09.2020 BE law
Stibbe hosts a webinar on dawn raids organised by IBJ/IJE

Seminar - On 24 September 2020, several Stibbe lawyers ​​​​​explain the rights and obligations of companies when confronted with announced or unannounced raids. What do to when, for example, tax authorities, the competition authorities, police services or a bailiff are at your doorstep?

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected Nexans’ appeal in the power cables cartel case. The Commission started the dawn raid at Nexans’ premises, but due to lack of time finished the raid at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The ECJ found that the Commission can copy data and assess its relevance to the investigation at its own premises, while safeguarding companies’ rights of defence.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

Short Reads - As well as granting companies leeway on certain COVID-19 initiated collaborations (see our May 2020 newsletter), the coronavirus outbreak has also led competition authorities to take a more lenient stance towards fine calculations and payments. The European Commission has extended the due date for fine payments by an additional three months in response to potential short-term liquidity issues brought about by the pandemic. Similar reasons led the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal to reduce a EUR 1 million cartel fine to just EUR 10,000.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
The ACM’s Green Deal: achieving sustainability via competition law?

Short Reads - The ACM has issued draft guidelines on the application of competition law to sustainability agreements. Companies entering into agreements that restrict competition but contribute to governmental sustainability objectives – i.e. lower CO2 emissions – may expect more room for collaboration. The proposed framework would allow these types of agreements if their anti-competitive effects are outweighed by their environmental benefits to society as a whole (rather than to in-market consumers only, as under the existing framework).

Read more