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)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. On 9 June 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered three judgements in cases C-608/13 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume... (CEPSA v Commission), C-616/13 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume... (PROAS/Commission) and C-617/13 (Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission) concerning the road penetration bitumen cartel in Spain. The Court dismisses the three appeals in their entirety. It will be recalled that on 3 October 2007, the European Commission imposed fines totalling €183,651,000 on BP, Repsol, Cepsa, Nynäs and Galp for participating in a cartel on the bitumen market in Spain, in violation of Article 81

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 Nº 3-2016, Art. N° 81115, www.concurrences.com

Visites 161

All reviews