Mo, 15. Dezember 2025, 10:27    |  Login:  User Passwort    Anmelden    Passwort vergessen
Arbeitsplattform NEWS URTEILE GESETZE/VO KOMMENTARE VIDEOS SITEINFO/IMPRESSUM NEWSLETTER
Achtung! Die Seite wird derzeit nicht aktualisiert. Die Inhalte sind im wesentlichen auf dem Stand 31.12.2011
Pressemitteilung
C-580/12 P;
Verkündet am: 
 12.11.2014
EuGH Europäischer Gerichtshof
 

Rechtskräftig: unbekannt!
The Court of Justice reduces the fine imposed on Guardian for its role in the flat-glass cartel from €148 million to €103.6 million
Click here to the full text of the judgement

In 2007, the Commission found that the undertakings Guardian, Asahi Glass, Pilkington and Saint-Gobain had unlawfully fixed prices in the flat-glass sector in the European Economic Area.1 The Commission imposed a fine of €148 million on Guardian. In 2012, the General Court upheld that decision.2 Guardian brought an appeal before the Court of Justice seeking to have the judgment of the General Court set aside and the fine reduced. It argued that the General Court failed to have regard to the principle of equal treatment in refusing to accept that, when the fine was calculated, sales between entities belonging to the same undertaking (internal sales) must be taken into account on the same basis as sales to independent third parties (external sales).

In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court in part and reduces the fine imposed on Guardian from €148 million to €103.6 million.

The Court of Justice notes that, in order to determine the amount of the fine to be imposed on an undertaking, the proportion of the overall turnover deriving from the sale of products in respect of which the infringement was committed is able to reflect the economic importance of the infringement and the relative weight of that undertaking in it. As regards those sales, a distinction must therefore not be drawn between external and internal sales. Excluding a company’s internal sales would effectively favour vertically integrated companies3 by reducing their relative weight in the infringement to the detriment of the other companies, on the basis of a criterion which has no connection with the objective pursued (namely that of reflecting the economic importance of the infringement and the relative weight of each of the undertakings that took part in it).

The Court notes that the exclusion of the internal sales led to the relative weight of Saint-Gobain (a vertically integrated company) in the infringement in particular being reduced and that of Guardian (a non-vertically integrated company) being increased commensurately. The Court therefore decides to reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Guardian by 30% and to set that fine at €103.6 million.

---------------
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.
-----------------
1Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass).
2 Case T-82/08 - Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission.
3A vertically integrated company is a company which brings together the various production and distribution stages for the same type of goods.
-----------------------------------------------------
Die von uns erfassten Urteile wurden oft anders formatiert als das Original. Dies bedeutet, daß Absätze eingefügt und Hervorhebungen durch fett-/kursiv-/&farbig-machen sowie Unterstreichungen vorgenommen wurden. Dies soll verdeutlichen, aber keinesfalls natürlich den Sinn verändern.Wenn Sie vorsichtshalber zusätzlich die Originalversion sehen möchten, hier ist der Link zur Quelle (kein Link? Dann ist dieser Link nicht in unserer DB gespeichert, z.B. weil das Urteil vor Frühjahr 2009 gespeichert worden ist).