Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019

1. CompetitionAdministrative procedureCommission decision finding an infringementMeans of proofReliance on a body of evidenceDegree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolationPermissibility of an overall assessment of a body of evidence

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 25-27)

2. Agreements, decisions and concerted practicesConcerted practiceConceptCoordination and cooperation incompatible with the obligation on each undertaking to determine independently its conduct on the marketExchange of information between competitorsAnti competitive object or effectPresumptionConditions

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 28-32)

3. CompetitionAdministrative procedureCommission decision finding an infringementUse as evidence of statements of other undertakings which participated in the infringementWhether permissibleProbative value of voluntary statements by the main participants in a cartel with a view to benefiting from application of the leniency notice

(Art. 101 TFEU; Commission notice 2006/C 298/11)

(see paras 49-52)

4. CompetitionAdministrative procedureCommission decision finding an infringementMeans of proofDocumentary proofAssessment of the probative value of a documentCriteriaHandwritten notes provided by a cartel participant in the framework of the leniency notice

(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Commission notice 2006/C 298/11)

(see paras 55-57)

5. CompetitionFinesAssessment by reference to the individual conduct of the undertakingIrrelevant that no sanction brought against another economic operatorNone

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see para. 111)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practicesComplex infringement comprising elements both of an agreement and of a concerted practiceSingle classification as an agreement and/or concerted practice Whether permissible

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 155, 156)

7. Agreements, decisions and concerted practicesProhibitionInfringementsAgreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringementAttribution of liability for the entire infringement to a single undertakingConditionsUnlawful practices and conduct forming part of an overall planAssessmentCriteriaCommon objective pursued by all the participantsRequirement for a link of complementarity between the practices complained ofNone

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 169-172)

8. CompetitionAdministrative procedureCommission decision finding an infringementObligation to define the market in questionScope

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 182, 183)

9. Judicial proceedingsApplication initiating proceedingsFormal requirementsBrief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is basedAbstract statementInadmissibility

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

(see para. 196)

10. CompetitionAdministrative procedureHearingsHearing of certain personsDiscretion of the CommissionLimitObservance of the rights of the defence

(Art. 101 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Arts 10(3) and 13)

(see para. 202)

11. CompetitionAdministrative procedureObservance of the rights of the defenceScope of the principleLimitsRight of the undertaking to cross-examine the witnessesNot included

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 216, 217)

12. Judicial proceedingsMeasures of inquiryHearing of witnessesDiscretion of the General CourtRelevance of the principle of the right to a fair process

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 91)

(see paras 226-230)

13. CompetitionFinesAmountDeterminationLeniency rulesNon-imposition or reduction of the fine in return for the cooperation of the undertaking concernedConditions

(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission notice 2006/C 298/11)

(see paras 241, 245)

14. 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; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2))

(see paras 255-264, 272, 276)

15. CompetitionFinesAmountDeterminationAdjustment of the basic amountMaximum amountCalculationTurnover to be taken into considerationTurnover for the business year immediately preceding the date on which the fine was imposed

(Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2))

(see paras 287-294)

16. CompetitionFinesAmountDeterminationDetermination of the basic amountGravity of the infringementEntry feeFactors to be taken into consideration

(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission notice 2006/C 210/02, points 20 to 23 and 25)

(see paras 322-325, 338, 341, 344, 345)

17. CompetitionFinesAmountDeterminationDiscretion of the CommissionJudicial reviewUnlimited jurisdiction of the EU judicatureScope

(Arts 261 and 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31)

(see paras 361, 362)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail Food Packaging) and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.