Villeroy and Boch v Commission (Judgment) [2017] EUECJ C-644/13 (26 January 2017)

Judgment By its appeal, Villeroy & Boch SAS (‘Villeroy & Boch France’ or ‘the appellant’) asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission (T‑373/10, T‑374/10, T‑382/10 and T‑402/10, not published, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2013:455), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed Villeroy & Boch France’s action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) (‘the decision at issue’) in so far as the decision concerned it. Legal context Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) provides, in Article 23(2) and (3): ‘2. The Commission may by decision impose fines on undertakings and associations of undertakings where, either intentionally or negligently: (a) they infringe Article [101] or [102 TFEU] … … For each undertaking and association of undertakings participating in the infringement, the fine shall not exceed 10% of its total turnover in the preceding business year. … 3. In fixing the amount of the fine, regard shall be had both to the gravity and to the duration of the infringement.’ The 2006 Guidelines The Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2; ‘the 2006 Guidelines’) state, in point 2, that, so far as concerns the setting of fines, ‘the Commission must have regard both to the gravity and to the duration of the infringement’ and that ‘the fine imposed may not exceed the limits specified in Article 23(2), second and third subparagraphs, of Regulation No 1/2003’. Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines states: ‘Although these Guidelines present the general methodology for the setting of fines, the particularities of a given case or the need to achieve deterrence in a particular case may justify departing from such methodology or from the limits specified in point 21. …’ Background to the dispute and the decision at issue The products covered by the cartel are bathroom fittings and fixtures belonging to the following three product sub-groups: taps and fittings, shower enclosures and accessories, and ceramic sanitary ware (ceramics) (‘the three product sub-groups’). The background to the dispute was set out by the General Court in paragraphs 1 to 19 of the judgment under appeal and may be summarised as follows. By the decision at issue, the Commission found that there had been an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3, ‘the EEA Agreement’) in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector. That infringement, in which 17 undertakings had allegedly participated, was said to have taken place over various periods between 16 October 1992 and 9 November 2004 and to have taken the form of anticompetitive agreements or concerted practices covering the territory of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria. More specifically, the Commission stated, in the decision at issue, that the infringement found consisted in (i) the coordination by those bathroom fittings and fixtures manufacturers of annual price increases and additional pricing elements within the framework of regular meetings of national industry associations; (ii) the fixing or coordination of prices on the occasion of specific events such as the increase of raw material costs, the introduction of the euro and the introduction of road tolls; and (iii) the disclosure and exchange of sensitive business information. The Commission also found that price setting in the bathroom fittings and fixtures industry followed an annual cycle. In that context, the manufacturers fixed their price lists, which generally remained in force for a year and formed the basis for commercial relations with wholesalers. Villeroy & Boch France and the other applicants at first instance, Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH (‘Villeroy & Boch Austria’), Villeroy & Boch AG (‘Villeroy & Boch’) and Villeroy & Boch Belgium SA (‘Villeroy & Boch Belgium’), are active in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector. Villeroy & Boch holds the entirety of the share capital in Villeroy & Boch Austria, Villeroy & Boch France, Villeroy & Boch Belgium, Ucosan BV and its subsidiaries and Villeroy & Boch SARL. On 15 July 2004, Masco Corp. and its subsidiaries, including Hansgrohe AG, which manufactures taps and fittings, and Hüppe GmbH, which manufactures shower enclosures, informed the Commission of the existence of a cartel in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector and submitted an application for immunity from fines under the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3; ‘the 2002 Leniency Notice’), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of any fines that might be imposed on them. On 2 March 2005, the Commission adopted a decision granting Masco conditional immunity from fines pursuant to points 8(a) and 15 of the 2002 Leniency Notice. On 9 and 10 November 2004, the Commission conducted unannounced inspections at the premises of various companies and national industry associations operating in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector. On 15 and 19 November 2004 respectively, Grohe Beteiligungs GmbH and its subsidiaries and American Standard Inc. (‘Ideal Standard’) each applied for immunity from fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice or, in the alternative, for a reduction in fines. Between 15 November 2005 and 16 May 2006, the Commission sent requests for information to a number of companies and associations active in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector, including the applicants before the General Court. The Commission then, on 26 March 2007, adopted a statement of objections which was notified, inter alia, to those applicants. On 17 and 19 January 2006 respectively, Roca SARL and Hansa Metallwerke AG and its subsidiaries each applied for immunity from fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice or, in the alternative, for a reduction in fines. On 20 January 2006, Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG Armaturenfabrik submitted a similar application. Following a hearing, which took place from 12 to 14 November 2007, in which the applicants at first instance took part, the sending, on 9 July 2009, of a letter of facts, drawing their attention to certain evidence on which the Commission was minded to rely when adopting a final decision and further requests for information that were subsequently addressed to the applicants, the Commission, on 23 June 2010, adopted the decision at issue. By that decision the Commission held that the practices described in paragraph 8 of the present judgment formed part of an overall plan to restrict competition among the addressees of that decision and had the characteristics of a single and continuous infringement, which covered the three product sub-groups and extended to Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria. In that regard, the Commission highlighted, in particular, the fact that those practices had followed a recurring pattern which was consistent in each of the six Member States covered by the Commission’s investigation. The Commission also pointed to the existence of national industry associations concerning all three product sub-groups, which it termed ‘umbrella associations’, national industry associations with members active in at least two of those three product sub-groups, which it termed ‘cross-product associations’, as well as product-specific associations with members active in only one of those three product sub-groups. Lastly, it found that a central group of undertakings participated in the cartel in several Member States and in cross-product associations and umbrella associations. According to the Commission, the applicants at first instance took part in the infringement at issue in their capacity as members of the following associations: in Germany, the IndustrieForum Sanitär, which, as of 2001, replaced the Freundeskreis der deutschen Sanitärindustrie, the Arbeitskreis Baden und Duschen, which, as of 2003, replaced the Arbeitskreis Duschabtrennungen, and the Fachverband Sanitär-Keramische Industrie, in Austria, the Arbeitskreis Sanitärindustrie, in Belgium, the Vitreous China-group, in the Netherlands, the Sanitair Fabrikanten Platform and, in France, the Association française des industries de céramique sanitaire (‘AFICS’). As regards the infringement in the Netherlands, the Commission found, in essence, in recital 1179 of the decision at issue, that the undertakings that had taken part in it could no longer be fined for the infringement because the limitation period had expired. In Article 1 of the decision at issue, the Commission listed the undertakings which it found to have committed an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and, from 1 January 1994, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement on account of their participation, for various periods between 16 October 1992 and 9 November 2004, in a cartel in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria. As regards the applicants at first instance, the Commission, in Article 1(1) of the decision at issue, made findings of infringement against Villeroy & Boch for its participation in the single infringement from 28 September 1994 to 9 November 2004 and against its subsidiaries Villeroy & Boch Belgium, Villeroy & Boch France and Villeroy & Boch Austria for periods from 12 October 1994, at the earliest, to 9 November 2004. In Article 2(8) of the decision at issue, the Commission imposed fines of (i) EUR 54 436 347 on Villeroy & Boch, (ii) EUR 6 083 604 on Villeroy & Boch and Villeroy & Boch Austria jointly and severally, (iii) EUR 2 942 608 on Villeroy & Boch and Villeroy & Boch Belgium jointly and severally and (iv) EUR 8 068 441 on Villeroy & Boch and Villeroy & Boch France jointly and severally. The total amount of the fines imposed on the applicants at first instance was therefore EUR 71 531 000. For the purpose of setting those fines, the Commission took as a basis the 2006 Guidelines. Proceedings before the General Court and the judgment under appeal By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 9 September 2010, Villeroy & Boch France brought an action in Case T‑382/10 for annulment of the decision at issue in so far as the decision concerned it or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on it. Villeroy & Boch France raised the following matters in support of its claim for annulment: infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement on account of the recognition of a single, continuous and complex infringement, failure to provide sufficient reasons, absence of evidence establishing an infringement in France, no legal basis enabling the applicants at first instance to be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of fines, error in the calculation of the fine imposed because of, inter alia, the inclusion in that calculation of sales unrelated to the infringement, failure to reduce the fine despite the excessive duration of the administrative procedure and, finally, infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 on account of the fact that the fine was disproportionate. In the alternative, Villeroy & Boch France put forward a claim for reduction of the fines imposed. By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. The forms of order sought by the parties The appellant claims that the Court should: – set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court thereby dismissed its action; – in the alternative, set aside in part the judgment under appeal; – in the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on it; – in the yet further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a determination; and – order the Commission to pay the costs. The Commission contends that the Court should: – dismiss the appeal in its entirety as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded; and – order the appellant to pay the costs. Consideration of the appeal The appellant raises four grounds in support of its appeal. The first ground of appeal alleges that the General Court made an error of law in the assessment of the infringement allegedly committed in France. The second ground of appeal argues that the General Court erred in law in finding there to be a complex and continuous infringement. The third ground of appeal alleges that the General Court failed to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in relation to the fine imposed on the appellant. By its fourth ground, the appellant maintains that there was a breach of the principle of proportionality. The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the evidence in the case of the infringements allegedly committed in France Arguments of the parties By its first ground of appeal, the appellant maintains, in essence, that the General Court made errors of law, since the assessment made by the Court with regard to the statements of Ideal Standard, Roca and Duravit AG concerning the acts committed in France is not consistent with its assessment of the same evidence in the judgment of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T‑379/10 and T‑381/10, not published, EU:T:2013:457), which also concerns the decision at issue. Consequently, the General Court breached the principle of equal treatment and the principle of in dubio pro reo . In paragraphs 287 to 290 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that Ideal Standard’s statements and those of Roca had enabled it to be established that the appellant had attended three AFICS meetings arranged in 2004, at which unlawful discussions were said to have taken place. In that regard, the General Court, in essence, recalled that a statement provided by an undertaking that has applied for leniency may not, in accordance with the principle testis unus, testis nullus (one witness is no witness), serve as proof unless such a statement is supported by statements from other cartel participants. However, there was, according to the General Court, such support in the present case, since the statement provided by Ideal Standard in its leniency application was confirmed by Roca’s statement. According to the appellant, the assessment of the evidence thus made by the General Court is clearly inconsistent with the assessment of the same evidence made in the judgment of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T‑379/10 and T‑381/10, not published, EU:T:2013:457, paragraphs 118 to 120), which also concerns the decision at issue. The appellant likewise submits that the General Court’s assessments in that judgment and in the judgment under appeal of the evidential value of the statement made by Duravit are contradictory. In the judgment of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T‑379/10 and T‑381/10, not published, EU:T:2013:457, paragraphs 115 and 116), the General Court found that that statement had not been communicated to the applicants in that case and that, consequently, it had to be regarded as being ineffective as against them. By contrast, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court accepted that Duravit’s statement should be taken into account. Thus, in paragraph 293 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that, although the decision at issue ‘does not rely’ on that statement, the fact remains that it confirmed Ideal Standard’s statement regarding the content of unlawful discussions that were held ‘probably’ on 25 February 2004. The appellant further submits that the General Court, in holding Duravit’s statement against it, although it knew that the statement could not be relied on in that regard and that the Commission itself had not relied on it in the decision at issue, altered the reasoning of that decision and infringed Article 263 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. Since no other item of evidence was put forward as regards the infringement for which the appellant could allegedly be held accountable in France, the findings against it are based on the errors of law described above, in so far as concerns acts committed in France. The Commission acknowledges that the assessments made by the General Court in the judgment under appeal are inconsistent with those made in the judgment of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T‑379/10 and T‑381/10, not published, EU:T:2013:457), but it contends that the error lies in the latter judgment. It submits that the appellant does not allege that there is an error of law in the assessment of the evidence but raises solely an allegation as to the unequal treatment of identical facts. The Commission also denies that there was a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. Lastly, it does not dispute the fact that Duravit’s statement may not be used as evidence but stresses that the judgment under appeal is not clearly founded on that statement. Findings of the Court In order to address the first ground of appeal, it must be recalled that the assessment by the General Court of the evidential value of a document may not, as a rule, be subject to review by the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings. As is clear from Article 256 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal lies on points of law only. The General Court therefore has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence, except where those facts and that evidence have been distorted (see, inter alia, judgment of 2 October 2003, Salzgitter v Commission , C‑182/99 P, EU:C:2003:526, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited), an allegation that has not been made in the present case. On the other hand, it is settled case-law that the question whether the grounds of a judgment of the General Court are contradictory or sufficient is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to review on appeal (see, inter alia, judgment of 21 September 2006, Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Commission , C‑105/04 P, EU:C:2006:592 , paragraph 71 and the case-law cited). In the present case, the General Court, in paragraph 287 of the judgment under appeal, found that the Commission relied on the statements of Ideal Standard and Roca in order to establish that Villeroy & Boch France had participated in the AFICS meetings in 2004. In paragraph 289 of that judgment the General Court pointed out that, whilst it is clear from the case-law that a statement made by a party that has benefited from the cancellation or reduction of its fine, which is disputed by another party, must be corroborated, there is nothing to prevent such corroboration being provided by evidence proffered by another undertaking that has participated in the cartel, even if that other party has also benefited from a reduction in its fine. After examining the evidential value of the statement made by Roca, the General Court, in paragraph 290 of that judgment, concluded that it had to be held that Ideal Standard’s statement, corroborated by that of Roca, proved to the requisite legal standard that the unlawful discussions at issue had taken place. The appellant submits that those grounds and the grounds in the judgment of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T‑379/10 and T‑381/10, not published, EU:T:2013:457), are contradictory. It must be recalled, however, that, in accordance with settled case-law, the General Court’s obligation to state the reasons for its judgments does not in principle extend to requiring it to justify the approach taken in one case as against that taken in another case, even if the latter concerns the same decision (see judgment of 11 July 2013, Team Relocations and Others v Commission , C‑444/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:464 , paragraph 66 and the case-law cited). Accordingly, the appellant’s argument that the grounds of the judgment under appeal and those of the judgment of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T‑379/10 and T‑381/10, not published, EU:T:2013:457), are contradictory must be rejected. As regards the appellant’s argument that the General Court could not rely on Duravit’s statement as against it, that argument is based on a misreading of the judgment under appeal. In fact, Duravit’s statement is mentioned, in paragraph 293 of the judgment under appeal, solely for the purpose of responding to an argument advanced by the applicants at first instance which invoked that statement and sought to cast doubt on the veracity of the statements made by Ideal Standard and Roca. Accordingly, the General Court did not accept Duravit’s statement as inculpatory evidence with regard to the appellant, as is confirmed by paragraph 295 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court found that the statements made by Ideal Standard and Roca were sufficient to establish the existence of an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded. The second ground of appeal, concerning the existence of a single and continuous infringement Arguments of the parties By its second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court made an error of law in artificially grouping together acts which were independent and in finding there to be a complex and continuous infringement. In that regard, the appellant claims, in the first place, that the General Court, in relying on the concept of a single, complex and continuous infringement misapplied Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. In its submission, that concept has no legal basis under EU law. It further submits that the judgment under appeal is insufficiently reasoned inasmuch as the General Court failed to respond to its arguments on this point. In the second place, the appellant argues, in the alternative, that the conditions for the recognition of a single infringement were not met in the present case since the Commission did not define the relevant market and since it has not been established that there was a relationship of complementarity between the various acts complained of. In the third place, the appellant maintains, in the alternative, that, because the decision at issue was annulled in part with regard to certain Member States in the judgments of 16 September, Wabco Europe and Others v Commission (T‑380/10, EU:T:2013:449); of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T‑379/10 and T‑381/10, not published, EU:T:2013:457); and of 16 September 2013, Duravit and Others v Commission (T‑364/10, not published, EU:T:2013:477), and because certain undertakings may not have been aware of the infringement as a whole, there cannot have been an overall infringement as defined in that decision. The Commission contends that the second ground of appeal should be rejected. Findings of the Court According to settled case-law, an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU can result not only from an isolated act, but also from a series of acts or from continuous conduct, even if one or more aspects of that series of acts or continuous conduct could also, in themselves and taken in isolation, constitute an infringement of that provision. Accordingly, if the different actions form part of an ‘overall plan’ because their identical object distorts competition in the internal market, the Commission is entitled to impute responsibility for those actions on the basis of participation in the infringement considered as a whole (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 June 2015, Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission and Commission v Fresh Del Monte Produce , C‑293/13 P and C‑294/13 P, EU:C:2015:416 , paragraph 156 and the case-law cited). An undertaking which has participated in a single and complex infringement of that kind by its own conduct, which fell within the definition of an agreement or concerted practice having an anticompetitive object within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU and was intended to help bring about the infringement as a whole, may thus be responsible also in respect of the conduct of other undertakings in the context of the same infringement throughout the period of its participation in the infringement. That is the position where it is shown that the undertaking intended, through its own conduct, to contribute to the common objectives pursued by all the participants and that it was aware of the offending conduct planned or put into effect by other undertakings in pursuit of the same objectives or that it could reasonably have foreseen it and was prepared to take the risk (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 June 2015, Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission and Commission v Fresh Del Monte Produce , C‑293/13 P and C‑294/13 P, EU:C:2015:416 , paragraph 157 and the case-law cited). An undertaking may thus have participated directly in all the forms of anticompetitive conduct comprising the single and continuous infringement, in which case the Commission is entitled to attribute liability to it in relation to that conduct as a whole and, therefore, in relation to the infringement as a whole. Equally, the undertaking may have participated directly in only some of the forms of anticompetitive conduct comprising the single and continuous infringement, but have been aware of all the other unlawful conduct planned or put into effect by the other participants in the cartel in pursuit of the same objectives, or could reasonably have foreseen that conduct and have been prepared to take the risk. In such cases, the Commission is also entitled to attribute liability to that undertaking in relation to all the forms of anticompetitive conduct comprising such an infringement and, accordingly, in relation to the infringement as a whole (see judgment of 24 June 2015, Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission and Commission v Fresh Del Monte Produce , C‑293/13 P and C‑294/13 P, EU:C:2015:416 , paragraph 158 and the case-law cited). Moreover, for the purpose of characterising various instances of conduct as a single and continuous infringement, it is not necessary to ascertain whether they present a link of complementarity, in the sense that each of them is intended to deal with one or more consequences of the normal pattern of competition, and, through interaction, contribute to the attainment of the set of anticompetitive effects desired by those responsible, within the framework of a global plan having a single objective. By contrast, the condition relating to a single objective requires that it be ascertained whether there are any elements characterising the various instances of conduct forming part of the infringement which are capable of indicating that the instances of conduct in fact implemented by other participating undertakings do not have an identical object or identical anticompetitive effect and, consequently, do not form part of an ‘overall plan’ as a result of their identical object distorting the normal pattern of competition within the internal market (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2013, Siemens and Others v Commission , C‑239/11 P, C‑489/11 P and C‑498/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:866 , paragraphs 247 and 248). Furthermore, it cannot be inferred from the Court’s case-law that Article 101(1) TFEU concerns only either (i) the undertakings operating on the market affected by the restrictions of competition or indeed on the markets upstream or downstream of that market or neighbouring markets or (ii) undertakings which restrict their freedom of action on a particular market under an agreement or as a result of a concerted practice. Indeed, it follows from well-established case-law of the Court that the text of Article 101(1) TFEU refers generally to all agreements and concerted practices which, in either horizontal or vertical relationships, distort competition on the internal market, irrespective of the market on which the parties operate, and that only the commercial conduct of one of the parties need be affected by the terms of the arrangements in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 October 2015, AC-Treuhand v Commission , C‑194/14 P, EU:C:2015:717 , paragraphs 34 and 35 and the case-law cited). Having regard to that case-law, the Court must, first, reject the appellant’s arguments that the legal concept of a single, complex and continuous infringement is incompatible with Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. Secondly, the Court finds that, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the General Court, in setting out that case-law in paragraphs 32 to 34, 41, 42 and 46 to 48 of the judgment under appeal, gave sufficient reasons for the judgment. Thirdly, as regards the appellant’s argument that the conditions for the recognition of a single infringement were not met in the present case since the Commission did not define the relevant market, it must be noted, as the General Court correctly stated in paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal and as the appellant accepts, that the fact that the infringement extended over distinct product and geographic markets does not in any event preclude the finding of a single infringement. Thus, this argument is in any event ineffective. Fourthly, the General Court, in paragraphs 63 to 71 of the judgment under appeal, did not err in law in holding that the Commission could in the present case find there to be a single objective tending to establish a single infringement. Indeed, the General Court, on the basis of the findings of fact made in paragraphs 66, 69 and 71 of the judgment under appeal, established to the requisite legal standard that the various instances of conduct complained of pursued the same goal, namely, as regards all the bathroom fittings and fixtures manufacturers, coordinating their conduct in relation to the wholesalers. In that regard, attention should be drawn to the fact that, contrary to what is maintained by the appellant, the concept of a common objective was defined — as is clear from paragraphs 66, 69 and 71 of the judgment under appeal — not by a general reference to a distortion of competition on the markets concerned by the infringement, but rather by reference to various objective factors, such as the central role played by the wholesalers in the distribution chain, the features of that chain, the existence of umbrella associations and cross-product associations, the similarities in the way the collusive arrangements were implemented and the material, geographic and temporal overlap between the practices concerned. There is in those circumstances no need to establish a link of complementarity between the practices complained of, given that a single and continuous infringement may be imputed to undertakings that are not in competition and does not require the relevant markets to be systematically defined. Moreover, in view of the fact that the appellant is (i) liable for its direct participation in the infringement complained of and (ii) liable for its indirect participation in that infringement since it was aware of all the offending conduct planned or implemented by the other cartel members in pursuit of the same objectives or could reasonably have foreseen that conduct and was prepared to take the risk, the General Court cannot be criticised for holding that the Commission did not make an error in concluding that there was a single and continuous infringement in the present case. Finally, as regards the arguments relating to the partial annulments ordered by judgments of the General Court concerning the same infringement as the infringement with which this case is concerned, it should be recalled that the assessment of the evidence concerning the various national markets falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the General Court. In so far as these arguments seek to call into question the existence of a single, complex and continuous infringement, it should be made clear that the fact that the General Court annulled the decision at issue in part in so far as it concerns proof of the participation in the infringement at issue of certain of the undertakings concerned on certain geographic markets for given periods of time is not sufficient to cast doubt on the General Court’s finding as to the existence of an overall plan covering the three product sub-groups and the six Member States concerned and an identical object distorting competition in the internal market. Consequently, the second ground of appeal must be rejected as in part ineffective and in part unfounded. The third and fourth grounds of appeal, concerning the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction and the proportionality of the fine Arguments of the parties By its third ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court failed to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fines set by the Commission. The appellant argues that it follows from Article 261 TFEU, the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 263 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the General Court and the Court of Justice are obliged actually to exercise their unlimited jurisdiction. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court carried out solely a review of legality in respect of the setting of the amount of the fine, contrary to what was requested by Villeroy & Boch France in its claim. The appellant further submits that, in the present case, the General Court should have reduced the fine in view of the gravity of the infringement, which concerned only a limited number of Member States. In that regard, it is impossible to understand the reasons why the Commission penalised the misconduct complained of in the present case more severely than similar cartels covering the whole of the European Economic Area. In addition, the General Court should have granted the appellant a reduction in its fine on account of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure. By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges a breach of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union . In that regard, the appellant stresses that, in order to determine the gravity of the infringement, the General Court should have taken into account the market concerned, the turnover achieved, the duration and nature of the infringement and the actual or potential effects of the infringement on the markets affected: it failed to do so. The General Court should also have satisfied itself that the amount of the fine imposed by the decision at issue was strictly proportionate; that is not the case where the turnover covered by the infringement is EUR 34.34 million and the total amount of the fines is EUR 8 068 441 million. The appellant therefore asks the Court of Justice to remedy these unlawful omissions on the part of the General Court and itself reduce the fine imposed. The Commission contends that the third and fourth grounds of appeal should be rejected. Findings of the Court According to settled case-law, the review of legality provided for in Article 263 TFEU involves review by the EU judicature, in respect of both the law and the facts, of the contested decision in the light of the arguments relied on by an applicant, which means that it has the power to assess the evidence, annul the decision and to alter the amount of the fines (see judgment of 10 July 2014, Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission , C‑295/12 P, EU:C:2014:2062 , paragraph 53 and the case-law cited). The review of legality is supplemented by the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the EU judicature by Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, in accordance with Article 261 TFEU. That jurisdiction empowers the competent Court, in addition to carrying out a mere review of legality with regard to the penalty, to substitute its own appraisal for the Commission’s and, consequently, to cancel, reduce or increase the fine or penalty payment imposed (judgment of 8 December 2011, Chalkor v Commission , C‑386/10 P, EU:C:2011:815 , paragraph 63 and the case-law cited). In order to satisfy the requirements of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when conducting a review in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fine, the EU judicature is bound, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 261 and 263 TFEU, to examine all complaints based on issues of fact and law which seek to show that the amount of the fine is not commensurate with the gravity or the duration of the infringement (see judgment of 18 December 2014, Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin , C‑434/13 P, EU:C:2014:2456 , paragraph 75 and the case-law cited). However, the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction is not equivalent to an own-motion review, and proceedings are inter partes. It is, in principle, for the applicant to raise pleas in law against the contested decision and to adduce evidence in support of those pleas (see judgment of 18 December 2014, Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin , C‑434/13 P, EU:C:2014:2456 , paragraph 76 and the case-law cited). It should be noted in that regard that the absence of an own-motion review of the whole of the contested decision does not contravene the principle of effective judicial protection. Compliance with that principle does not require that the General Court — which is indeed obliged to respond to the pleas in law raised and to carry out a review of both the law and the facts — should be obliged to undertake of its own motion a new and comprehensive investigation of the file (see judgment of 8 December 2011, Chalkor v Commission , C‑386/10 P, EU:C:2011:815 , paragraph 66). Moreover, according to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the General Court alone has jurisdiction to examine how in each particular case the Commission assessed the gravity of unlawful conduct. In an appeal, the purpose of review by the Court of Justice is, first, to examine to what extent the General Court took into consideration, in a legally correct manner, all the essential factors to assess the gravity of particular conduct in the light of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and, second, to consider whether the General Court responded to a sufficient legal standard to all the arguments raised in support of the claim for reduction of the fine. The gravity of infringements of EU competition law must be determined by reference to numerous factors such as, in particular, the deterrent effect of fines, the specific circumstances and context of the case, including the conduct of each of the undertakings, the role played by each of them in the establishment of the cartel, the profit which they were able to derive from it, their size, the value of the goods concerned and the threat that infringements of that type pose to the objectives of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2013, Team Relocations and Others v Commission , C‑444/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:464 , paragraphs 95, 99 and 100). Moreover, it is not for the Court of Justice, when ruling on questions of law in the context of an appeal, to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the General Court exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for their infringement of EU law. Accordingly, only where the Court of Justice considers that the level of the penalty is not merely inappropriate, but also excessive to the point of being disproportionate, does it have to find that the General Court erred in law, on account of the inappropriateness of the amount of a fine (see, inter alia, judgment of 30 May 2013, Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission , C‑70/12 P, not published, EU:C:2013:351 , paragraph 57 and the case-law cited). It is necessary to examine the third and fourth grounds of appeal in the light of that case-law. It is clear from that case-law that, first, a review in the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction concerns solely the penalty imposed and not the entirety of the contested decision and, second, neither the exercise of unlimited jurisdiction nor the review of legality are equivalent to an own-motion review and they therefore do not require the General Court to undertake of its own motion a new and comprehensive investigation of the file, independently of the claims put forward by the applicant. In the present case, it must be found that the General Court did in fact carry out, in paragraph 335 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, a review of the amount of the fine, that it responded to Villeroy & Boch France’s various arguments and that, in paragraphs 397 to 402 of the judgment, it ruled on the claims seeking reduction of the fine; it therefore did not confine itself to merely reviewing the legality of that amount, contrary to what is maintained by the appellant. In that connection, the General Court stated in particular, in paragraph 384 of the judgment under appeal, that the multiplier of 15% in respect of the multipliers for ‘gravity of the infringement’ and for the ‘additional amount’ was the lowest possible in view of the particularly serious nature of the infringement at issue, then held, in paragraphs 397 to 401 of the judgment, that none of the matters put forward by the applicants at first instance justified a reduction of the fine. Concerning more particularly the examination of the gravity of the alleged infringement, it should be noted that the General Court referred, in paragraph 381 of the judgment under appeal, in particular to point 23 of the 2006 Guidelines, which states that ‘horizontal price-fixing, market-sharing and output-limitation agreements, which are usually secret, are, by their very nature, among the most harmful restrictions of competition. As a matter of policy, they will be heavily fined. Therefore, the proportion of the value of sales taken into account for such infringements will generally be set at the higher end of the scale’. The General Court set out, in paragraph 383 of the judgment under appeal, the reasoning adopted by the Commission in recital 1211 of the decision at issue, which stated that horizontal price coordination was, owing to its very nature, one of the most harmful restrictions of competition and that the infringement was a single, continuous and complex infringement covering six Member States and concerning the three product sub-groups. The General Court went on to make findings, (i) in paragraph 384 of that judgment, as to the particularly serious nature of the infringement in question, which justified the application of a multiplier for gravity of 15%, and (ii) in paragraph 385 of the judgment, as to the appellant’s participation in ‘the central group of undertakings’ that implemented the infringement found. In thus taking account of all the relevant criteria for assessing the gravity of the infringement in question (horizontal price coordination and the appellant’s involvement in it also being proven) and in responding to the appellant’s arguments on that point, the General Court did not make an error of law and fulfilled its obligation to carry out an effective judicial review of the decision at issue. Concerning the assessment of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure, it should be recalled that, although an infringement by the Commission of the ‘reasonable time principle’ can justify the annulment of a decision taken by it following an administrative procedure based on Article 101 or 102 TFEU inasmuch as it also entails an infringement of the rights of defence of the undertaking concerned, such an infringement of the reasonable time principle, if established, cannot lead to a reduction of the fine imposed (see, inter alia, judgments of 9 June 2016, CEPSA v Commission , C‑608/13 P, EU:C:2016:414 , paragraph 61, and of 9 June 2016, PROAS v Commission , C‑616/13 P, EU:C:2016:415 , paragraph 74 and the case-law cited). In the present case, as follows from paragraph 62 of the present judgment, it is clear that, by its argument that the General Court’s assessment of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure was incorrect, the appellant is seeking solely a reduction of the fine imposed on it. Accordingly, regardless of its merits, that argument must be rejected as ineffective. Finally, as regards the proportionality of the fine imposed, the appellant has put forward no argument capable of demonstrating that the level of the fine imposed is inappropriate or excessive. In that regard, the Court rejects the argument that a fine of EUR 8 068 441 million is disproportionate in relation to the turnover concerned by the cartel (EUR 34.34 million). It is not disputed that, in the present case, the amount of the fine imposed on Villeroy & Boch and its subsidiaries was reduced so as not to exceed 10% of their total turnover in the preceding business year, in accordance with Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. That limit is already a guarantee that the fine is not disproportionate to the size of the undertaking, determined by reference to its worldwide turnover (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 June 2005, Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission , C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02, EU:C:2005:408 , paragraphs 280 to 282). Consequently, the third and fourth grounds of appeal must be rejected as partly ineffective and partly unfounded. Since none of the grounds of appeal relied upon by the appellant has been upheld, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs. Under Article 138(1) of those rules, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the appellant has been unsuccessful and the Commission has applied for costs against it, the appellant must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders Villeroy & Boch SAS to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: French. © European Union The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII