In Case T‑799/17

573It must be noted that, in the light of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction in respect of fines for infringement of competition rules, nothing in the complaints, arguments and matters of law and of fact put forward by the applicants in all of the pleas in law examined above supports the conclusion that the amount of the fine imposed by the contested decision must be amended.

IV.Costs

574Under Article134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

575Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition),

hereby:

1.Dismisses the action;

2.Orders Scania AB, Scania CV AB and Scania Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2February 2022.

Table of contents

I. Background to the dispute

A. Administrative procedure which led to the contested decision

B. Contested decision

1. Structure of the truck market and the price-setting mechanism in the truck industry

(a) The structure of the truck market

(b) Price-setting mechanism in the truck industry

(c) Price-setting mechanism within Scania

(d) The impact of price increases at European level on prices at national level

2. Collusive contacts between Scania and the settling parties

3. Application of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement

(a) Agreements and concerted practices

(b) Restriction of competition

(c) Single and continuous infringement

(d) Geographic scope of the infringement

4. Addressees

5. Calculation of the amount of the fine

(a) Basic amount of the fine

(b) Final amount of the fine

6. Operative part of the contested decision

II. Procedure and forms of order sought

III. Law

A. The omission of certain information vis-à-vis the public

B. Substance

1. The first plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of good administration and the presumption of innocence

2. The second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article48(2) of the Charter and of Article27(1) and (2) of Regulation No1/2003

3. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh pleas in law, in so far as they relate to the Commission’s conclusion as to the existence of a single and continuous infringement and its imputation to Scania

(a) Preliminary observations

(1) The concept of a single and continuous infringement

(2) The burden of proof and the standard of proof

(3) Contested decision

(4) The applicants’ argument that the concept of a single and continuous infringement requires the Commission to identify several infringements which are clearly interrelated

(b) The third plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement in so far as the exchanges of information at lower headquarters level were considered to constitute an infringement of those provisions

(1) Contested decision

(2) The first complaint

(3) The second complaint

(c) The fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and misapplication of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement in that the Commission found that the applicants had concluded an agreement or had engaged in a concerted practice concerning the timing of the introduction of emission technologies

(1) The first part of the fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons

(2) The second part of the fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement in that the Commission found that the applicants had concluded an agreement or had engaged in a concerted practice on the timing of the introduction of emission technologies onto the market

(3) The third part of the fourth plea in law, alleging that the exchanges of information on the timing of the introduction of emission technologies do not constitute an infringement by object

(d) The fifth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement in so far as the Commission classified the exchanges of information at German level as an infringement ‘by object’

(1) Preliminary observations

(2) The content of the information exchanged

(i) The intended changes to gross prices and gross price lists and the timing of those changes, referred to in recital238(a) of the contested decision

– The applicants’ argument relating to the current or future nature of the information exchanged at German level

– The applicants’ argument concerning the public nature of the gross prices exchanged at German level

– The applicants’ argument that the gross prices exchanged at German level had no informative value as regards the prices actually applied in market transactions

(ii) The intended changes to net prices and rebates offered to customers, as referred to in recital238(a) of the contested decision

(iii) The passing on of costs relating to the introduction of emission technologies for medium and heavy trucks, required by Euro3 to 6 standards, referred to in recital238(b) of the contested decision

(iv) The exchange of other commercially sensitive information, referred to in recital238(c) of the contested decision

(3) The aim of the exchanges of information at German level

(4) The context of the exchange of information at German level

(e) The sixth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement in that the Commission considered that the geographic scope of the infringement relating to German level extended to the whole of the EEA

(1) The geographic scope of the information obtained by Scania DE

(2) The geographic scope of the information provided by Scania DE

(f) The seventh plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement in that the Commission considered that the identified conduct constituted a single and continuous infringement and that the applicants were liable in that regard

(1) The existence of a single and continuous infringement in the present case

(i) Preliminary observations

(ii) Contested decision

(iii) Assessment

– The overall assessment of the three levels of contacts

– The nature of the information exchanged within the three levels of contacts

– The continuous nature of the infringement

(2) The imputability of the single and continuous infringement to Scania

4. The eighth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article101 TFEU and of Article53 of the EEA Agreement, as well as of Article25 of Regulation No1/2003, in that the Commission imposed a fine in relation to conduct that is time-barred and, in any event, by not taking into account that the conduct was not continuous

5. The ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of equal treatment as regards the amount of the fine and, in any event, alleging the need to reduce the amount of the fine under Article261 TFEU and under Article31 of Regulation No1/2003

(a) Infringement of the principle of proportionality

(b) Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

(c) The amount of the fine

IV. Costs

*Language of the case: English.

1Confidential information omitted.