Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2017.Global Steel Wire, SA and Others v European Commission.Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent company — Definition of ‘undertaking’ — Evidence for the finding of an economic unit — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Successive undertakings — Amount of the fine — Ability to pay — Conditions — Observance of the rights of the defence.Joined Cases C-457/16 P and C-459/16 P to C-461/16 P.

Judgment // 26/10/2017 // 2 min read
bookmark 6 citations

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 —Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases C‑457/16 P and C‑459/16 P to C‑461/16 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent company — Definition of ‘undertaking’ — Evidence for the finding of an economic unit — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Successive undertakings — Amount of the fine — Ability to pay — Conditions — Observance of the rights of the defence)

  1. Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 25-28, 40, 48, 56, 62, 105-108)

  1. Appeal—Interest in bringing proceedings—Condition—Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it—Scope

(see paras 31-33)

  1. Competition—EU rules—Infringements—Attribution—Parent company and subsidiaries—Economic unit—Criteria for assessment—Presumption that a parent company exerts a decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries—Rebuttable—Combination of the presumption that a parent company actually exerts a decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries with other evidence

(Art. 101 TFEU)

(see paras 81-90)

  1. Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Scope of the obligation to state reasons

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117(m))

(see para. 97)

  1. Competition—EU rules—Infringements—Attribution—Infringement committed by an entity which has ceased to exist as of result of having been absorbed by another undertaking—Attribution of the infringement to the new entity—Lawfulness

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 115-122)

  1. Competition—Administrative procedure—Statement of objections—Necessary content—Application for a reduction of the amount of the fine on the ground of inability to pay—Application lodged by an undertaking after its response to the statement of complaints—Rejection of that application without any form of communication or a preliminary hearing—Rejection based exclusively on the information provided by the undertaking concerned in the context of its application—Infringement of the rights of the defence—No such infringement

(Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27; Commission Communication 2006/C 210/02, point 35)

(see paras 138-148)

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the appeals;

  2. Orders Global Steel Wire SA, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, Trefilerías Quijano SA and Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

Competition