Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings v Commission (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors - Judgment (extracts) [2021] EUECJ T-344/18 (29 September 2021)

Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings v Commission (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors - Judgment (extracts) [2021] EUECJ T-344/18 (29 September 2021)

The Court held that the Commission did not err in refusing partial immunity from fines for the applicants' evidence, as it did not establish additional facts increasing the gravity of the infringement. The Commission correctly applied the general method for calculating fines and the 10% turnover ceiling, and was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EUECJ T-344/18
Parties
Applicant: Rubycon Corp.; Applicant: Rubycon Holdings Co. Ltd; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment and Reduction of Fine / Final Judgment at General Court
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Cartels, Fines, Leniency, Article 101 TFEU, EEA Agreement Article 53, Calculation of Fines, Principle of Equal Treatment, Proportionality
Competition Law European Union Law Cartels Fines Leniency Article 101 TFEU EEA Agreement Article 53 Calculation of Fines +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rubycon Corp.

Applicant

Rubycon Holdings Co. Ltd

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment and Reduction of Fine / Final Judgment at General Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission erred in refusing partial immunity from fines for evidence increasing the gravity of the infringement
  2. 2 Whether the Commission erred in refusing to depart from the general method for calculating fines under the 2006 Guidelines
  3. 3 Whether the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment in its calculation of fines

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Commission did not err in refusing partial immunity from fines for the applicants' evidence, as it did not establish additional facts increasing the gravity of the infringement. The Commission correctly applied the general method for calculating fines and the 10% turnover ceiling, and was not required to depart from its guidelines. The applicants' situation was not comparable to other undertakings who received reductions, and there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment or proportionality.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • The action is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.