ALERT: ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICE - MARKET SHARING - LENIENCY - EVIDENCE OF FACTS PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN

Leniency : The Court of Justice of the European Union rules that the final paragraph of point 23(b) of the 2002 Leniency Notice must be interpreted as meaning that evidence provided by an undertaking in the context of its application under that notice may be considered to be evidence relating to ‘facts previously unknown to the Commission’ only if it objectively presents significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission’s possession as the Commission’s possession of evidence amounts to knowledge of its content, regardless of whether that evidence was actually examined and analysed by its services (CEPSA/PROAS/Repsol)

Le 9 juin 2016, la Cour de justice de l'Union a rendu trois arrêts dans les affaires C-608/13 (CEPSA / Commission), C-616/13 (PROAS/Commission) et C-617/13 (Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades e.a./Commission) concernant le cartel du bitume de pénétration routier en Espagne. La Cour y rejette les trois pourvois dans leur intégralité. On se souvient que le 3 octobre 2007, la Commission européenne avait infligé des amendes d’un montant total de 183 651 000 euros aux sociétés BP, Repsol, Cepsa, Nynäs et Galp pour avoir participé à une entente sur le marché du bitume en Espagne, en violation de l'article 81 CE. De 1991 à 2002, ces sociétés s'étaient partagées le marché du bitume utilisé dans la construction routière et en avaient coordonné les prix. BP a été la première société à divulguer des informations

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • L’actu-concurrence (Paris)

Quotation

Alain Ronzano, Leniency : The Court of Justice of the European Union rules that the final paragraph of point 23(b) of the 2002 Leniency Notice must be interpreted as meaning that evidence provided by an undertaking in the context of its application under that notice may be considered to be evidence relating to ‘facts previously unknown to the Commission’ only if it objectively presents significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission’s possession as the Commission’s possession of evidence amounts to knowledge of its content, regardless of whether that evidence was actually examined and analysed by its services (CEPSA/PROAS/Repsol), 9 June 2016, Concurrences Review Nº 3-2016, Art. N° 81115, www.concurrences.com

Visites 107

All reviews