This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0612
Case C-612/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Ballast Nedam NV v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen — Setting of a rebate for road builders — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 27 — Rights of the defence — Reduction of the fine)
Case C-612/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Ballast Nedam NV v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen — Setting of a rebate for road builders — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 27 — Rights of the defence — Reduction of the fine)
Case C-612/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Ballast Nedam NV v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen — Setting of a rebate for road builders — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 27 — Rights of the defence — Reduction of the fine)
OJ C 151, 19.5.2014, pp. 4–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 151/4 |
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Ballast Nedam NV v European Commission
(Case C-612/12 P) (1)
((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen - Setting of a rebate for road builders - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 27 - Rights of the defence - Reduction of the fine))
2014/C 151/05
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Appellant: Ballast Nedam NV (represented by: A. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, advocaten)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, Agents, and by F. Tuytschaever, avocat)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of 27 September 2012 in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission, by which the General Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed an action brought by Ballast Nedam for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerned Ballast Nedam; and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision, to the extent that it sets the duration of the infringement with respect to Ballast Nedam, and reduction of the fine imposed on Ballast Nedam.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Sets aside the judgment in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission to the extent that it rejects the plea in law raised by Ballast Nedam NV relating to the infringement of Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] and of the rights of the defence during the administrative procedure which led to Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)); |
|
2. |
Annuls Article 1(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final to the extent that it concerns Ballast Nedam NV’s infringement of Article 81 EC during the period from 21 June 1996 to 30 September 2000; |
|
3. |
Annuls Article 2(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final to the extent that it sets the amount of the fine payable by Ballast Nedam NV at EUR 4,65 million; |
|
4. |
Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Ballast Nedam NV under Article 2(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final at EUR 3,45 million; |
|
5. |
Orders the European Commission to pay all costs relating to the present appeal; |
|
6. |
Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance. |