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

1. CompetitionFinesDecision imposing finesObligation to state reasonsScopeIndication of the reasons which led the Commission to hold a parent company jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiaries

(Art. 296 TFEU)

(see paras 39-60)

2. CompetitionEU rulesInfringementsAttributionParent company and subsidiariesEconomic unitCriteria for assessmentPresumption of dominant influence exercised by parent company over its wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiariesInfringement of the principle of individual responsibilityNoneInfringement of the presumption of innocenceNone

(Art. 101 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48)

(see paras 66-75)

3. CompetitionEU rulesInfringementsAttributionParent company and subsidiariesEconomic unitCriteria for assessmentPresumption of dominant influence exercised by parent company over its wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiariesInfringement of the right to propertyNone

(Art. 101 TFUE et 345 TFUE)

(see paras 78-85)

4. CompetitionAdministrative procedureObservance of the rights of the defenceGeneral duty of care incumbent on any undertakingObligation to ensure conservation of the necessary evidence in the event of legal or administrative actions

(Art. 101 TFEU)

(see paras 88-92)

5. CompetitionEU rulesInfringementsAttributionParent company and subsidiariesEconomic unitCriteria for assessmentPresumption of dominant influence exercised by parent company over its wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiariesEvidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumptionFactors insufficient to rebut the presumption

(Art. 101 TFEU)

(see paras 99-101)

6. CompetitionEU rulesInfringementsAttributionParent company and subsidiariesEconomic unitCriteria for assessmentPresumption of dominant influence exercised by parent company over its wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiariesBreach of principle of proportionalityNone

(Art. 101 TFEU)

(see paras 106-111)

7. Judicial proceedingsApplication initiating proceedingsFormal requirementsBrief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is basedPlea not supported by precise argumentsInadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76)

(see paras 141, 142)

8. CompetitionFinesAmountDeterminationJudicial reviewUnlimited jurisdiction of the EU judicatureScopeUnlimited jurisdiction limited to assessments under the Commission’s power to impose penaltiesDetermination of the share of the fine to be borne by the joint and several co-debtorsJurisdiction of the national courts

(Art. 261 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31)

(see para. 148)

9. CompetitionFinesJoint and several liability for paymentScopeAttribution to the parent company of the infringing conduct of its subsidiaryConsequences for the parent company in the event of annulment or amendment of the Commission’s decision

(Art. 101 TFEU)

(see paras 150-158)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3. Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs.