This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TA0466
Case T-466/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Amending decision — Settlement procedure — Fines — Basic amount — Exceptional adjustment — 10 % ceiling on the total turnover — Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Ne bis in idem principle — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Cumulation of penalties — Proportionality — Fairness — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Case T-466/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Amending decision — Settlement procedure — Fines — Basic amount — Exceptional adjustment — 10 % ceiling on the total turnover — Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Ne bis in idem principle — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Cumulation of penalties — Proportionality — Fairness — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Case T-466/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Amending decision — Settlement procedure — Fines — Basic amount — Exceptional adjustment — 10 % ceiling on the total turnover — Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Ne bis in idem principle — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Cumulation of penalties — Proportionality — Fairness — Unlimited jurisdiction)
OJ C 413, 9.12.2019, p. 44–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.12.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 413/44 |
Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission
(Case T-466/17) (1)
(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons - Amending decision - Settlement procedure - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - 10 % ceiling on the total turnover - Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Ne bis in idem principle - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Cumulation of penalties - Proportionality - Fairness - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2019/C 413/51)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France (Fleury-Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann et P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)
Re:
Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4112 final of 16 June 2017 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) and, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |