thyssenkrupp v Commission (Competition - Concentration - Market for the production and distribution of flat carbon steel - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ T-584/19 (22 June 2022)

thyssenkrupp v Commission (Competition - Concentration - Market for the production and distribution of flat carbon steel - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ T-584/19 (22 June 2022)

The Court found that the Commission did not commit procedural errors, errors of law, or manifest errors of assessment in its definition of the relevant product and geographic markets for automotive HDG and laminated steel for packaging. The Commission was entitled to rely on a range of evidence, was not required to apply a SSNIP or econometric test, and provided adequate reasoning for its conclusions. The applicant's arguments regarding supply-side and demand-side substitutability, reliance on Commission precedents, and alleged procedural shortcomings were rejected as unfounded or ineffective.

Citation
[2022] EUECJ T-584/19
Parties
Applicant: thyssenkrupp AG; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Market Definition, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Competition Law European Union Law Merger Control Market Definition Judicial Review Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

thyssenkrupp AG

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission erred in defining the relevant product and geographic markets for automotive HDG and laminated steel for packaging.
  2. 2 Whether the Commission committed procedural errors, errors of law, or manifest errors of assessment in its competitive analysis and rejection of commitments.
  3. 3 Whether the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning or to investigate diligently.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Commission did not commit procedural errors, errors of law, or manifest errors of assessment in its definition of the relevant product and geographic markets for automotive HDG and laminated steel for packaging. The Commission was entitled to rely on a range of evidence, was not required to apply a SSNIP or econometric test, and provided adequate reasoning for its conclusions. The applicant's arguments regarding supply-side and demand-side substitutability, reliance on Commission precedents, and alleged procedural shortcomings were rejected as unfounded or ineffective.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.