PARALLEL TEXTS
Il Tribunale conferma, nel complesso, la legittimità delle richieste di informazioni inviate dalla Commissione ai cementieri
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-35_en.htm
Italiano tratto da: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-35_it.htm
Data documento: 14-03-2014
1 |
The General Court confirms, on the whole, the lawfulness of the requests for information sent by the Commission to cement manufacturers
|
Il Tribunale conferma, nel complesso, la legittimità delle richieste di informazioni inviate dalla Commissione ai cementieri
|
2 |
The Court nevertheless partially accepts one of the actions on the basis of the inadequacy of the time-limit for responding and provides details on the assessment of the non-arbitrary nature of a request for information
|
Nondimeno il Tribunale accoglie parzialmente uno dei ricorsi in ragione del termine di risposta insufficiente e fornisce precisazioni sulla valutazione del carattere non arbitrario di una richiesta di informazioni
|
3 |
In November 2008 and September 2009, the Commission carried out inspections on the premises of several companies operating in the cement sector.
|
Nei mesi di novembre 2008 e settembre 2009, la Commissione ha effettuato alcune ispezioni nei locali di diverse società operanti nel settore del cemento.
|
4 |
On 6 December 2010, the Commission opened against several cement undertakings a procedure relating to presumed infringements consisting of ‘restrictions on trade flows in the European Economic Area (EEA), including restrictions on imports in the EEA coming from countries outside the EEA, market-sharing, price coordination and related anti-competitive practices in the cement market and related product markets’.
|
Il 6 dicembre 2010, ha avviato, nei confronti di alcune di esse, un procedimento per presunte infrazioni consistenti in «restrizioni dei flussi commerciali nello Spazio economico europeo (SEE), includendo restrizioni delle importazioni verso il SEE provenienti da paesi non SEE, ripartizione del mercato, coordinamento dei prezzi e connesse pratiche anticompetitive nel mercato del cemento e dei prodotti ad esso correlati».
|
5 |
Within the framework of that procedure, on 30 March 2011 the Commission adopted several decisions in order to ask the undertakings concerned to respond, in a binding format, to a questionnaire relating to those presumptions of infringements.
|
Il 30 marzo 2011 ha adottato varie decisioni chiedendo alle imprese interessate di rispondere, con un formato vincolante, ad un questionario sulle presunte infrazioni.
|
6 |
The German companies Holcim Deutschland, HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement, the Swiss company Holcim, the Italian companies Buzzi Unicem and Italmobiliare, the Spanish company Portland Valderrivas and several companies belonging to the Cemex group brought seven actions for annulment of those decisions.
|
Le società tedesche Holcim Deutschland, HeidelbergCement e Schwenk Zement, la svizzera Holcim, le italiane Buzzi Unicem e Italmobiliare, la spagnola Portland Valderrivas e varie società appartenenti al gruppo Cemex hanno proposto sette ricorsi per l’annullamento di tali decisioni.
|
7 |
They allege, inter alia, that the Commission failed to provide an adequate explanation of the presumed infringements referred to in the contested decisions and that it imposed on them a disproportionate workload in relation to the volume of information requested and the particularly binding response format.
|
Hanno contestato alla Commissione di non aver spiegato a sufficienza le presunte infrazioni che compaiono nelle decisioni impugnate e di avere imposto loro una mole di lavoro sproporzionata in considerazione del volume delle informazioni richieste e del formato di risposta particolarmente vincolante.
|
8 |
In its judgments of today’s date, the Court rejects those actions, with the exception of the action brought by the company Schwenk Zement, which is partially accepted.
|
Nelle sue sentenze odierne, il Tribunale respinge i ricorsi, eccezion fatta per quello proposto dalla Schwenk Zement, che è accolto parzialmente.
|
9 |
The Court takes the view that the presumed infringements, although set out in very general terms which might well have been made more precise, have the minimum degree of clarity in order to be able to be considered to be consistent with the requirements of EU law.
|
Il Tribunale considera che le descrizioni delle presunte infrazioni, pur se enunciate in termini molto generali che avrebbero meritato di essere precisati, presentano il grado minimo di chiarezza per poter essere considerate conformi ai requisiti del diritto dell’Unione.
|
10 |
Likewise, the Court observes that the size of the workload caused by the volume of information and the very high degree of precision in the response format imposed by the Commission cannot be reasonably disputed.
|
Del pari il Tribunale rileva che non possono essere validamente contestati la rilevante mole di lavoro generata dal volume delle informazioni richieste e l’elevatissimo grado di precisione del formato della risposta imposto dalla Commissione.
|
11 |
However, the Court concludes that that workload is not disproportionate in the light of the necessities of the enquiry and the extent of the presumed infringements.
|
Esso conclude tuttavia che tale onere non è sproporzionato, considerate le esigenze dell’inchiesta e l’ampiezza delle presunte infrazioni.
|
12 |
The Court nevertheless takes the view that the time-limit of two weeks granted to Schwenk Zement to respond to the 11th series of questions is insufficient, so much so that the action brought by that company is partially accepted.
|
Nondimeno il Tribunale considera insufficiente il termine di due settimane accordato alla Schwenk Zement per rispondere all’undicesima serie di domande, e accoglie parzialmente il ricorso proposto da tale società.
|
13 |
The Court notes in that regard that the assessment of the sufficient nature of the time-limit for responding entails taking into account the risk of a fine or of a periodic penalty payment incurred by the addressee of the request not only where that addressee fails to provide information or provides incomplete or late information, but also where the information provided is considered by the Commission to be inaccurate or distorted.
|
La valutazione della sufficienza di un termine di risposta implica che sia preso in considerazione il rischio di ammende o penalità di mora che il destinatario della richiesta corre non solo qualora si astenga dal fornire informazioni o fornisca informazioni incomplete o in ritardo, ma anche nel caso in cui le informazioni fornite siano qualificate dalla Commissione come inesatte o fuorvianti.
|
14 |
The time-limit granted must, therefore, allow the addressee to give a substantive response, but also to ensure the complete, accurate and non-distorted nature of the information provided.
|
Il termine accordato deve, pertanto, consentire al destinatario di fornire materialmente una risposta, ma anche di assicurarsi che le informazioni fornite siano complete, esatte e non fuorvianti.
|
15 |
Noting that the 11th series of questions entails the identification of all the contacts (including highly informal ones) established over several years by the employees of Schwenk Zement with the producers of cement and of related products or their representatives, the Court observes that the collection, organisation and verification of the information requested were not necessarily easy in the present case and infers from this that the time-limit of two weeks granted by the Commission was insufficient.
|
Rilevando che l’undicesima serie di domande comporta l’identificazione di tutti i contatti (compresi i più informali) stabiliti nel corso di diversi anni dai dipendenti della Schwenk Zement con i produttori di cemento e di prodotti correlati o loro rappresentanti, il Tribunale osserva che non era necessariamente agevole raccogliere, organizzare e verificare le informazioni richieste e ne deduce che il termine di due settimane concesso dalla Commissione era insufficiente.
|
16 |
The company Cementos Portland Valderrivas disputed the arbitrary nature of the request for information, submitting that it is exploratory.
|
La società Cementos Portland Valderrivas ha, dal canto suo, lamentato l’arbitrarietà della richiesta di informazioni, ritenendo che quest’ultima abbia natura esplorativa.
|
17 |
It therefore asked the Court to order the Commission to produce the evidence which led it to make that request.
|
Essa ha quindi chiesto al Tribunale di ordinare alla Commissione di produrre gli indizi che l’avevano indotta ad adottare tale richiesta.
|
18 |
On this occasion, the Court notes that the requirement of protection against arbitrary or disproportionate interventions of public authorities in the sphere of private activities of a person (whether natural or legal) constitutes a general principle of EU law which must be respected in making any request for information.
|
Il Tribunale ricorda che l’esigenza della tutela contro interventi arbitrari o sproporzionati delle autorità pubbliche nella sfera di attività privata di una persona (sia essa fisica o giuridica) costituisce un principio generale del diritto dell’Unione che deve essere rispettato nell’adottare qualsiasi richiesta di informazioni.
|
19 |
As a consequence, such a request must seek to collect the necessary documentation in order to verify the truth and the scope of situations of fact and of law in respect of which the Commission already has information in the form of sufficiently serious evidence consistent with the suspicion of an infringement of the rules on competition.
|
Di conseguenza, una richiesta di questo tipo deve mirare a raccogliere la documentazione necessaria per verificare la realtà e la portata di situazioni di fatto e di diritto riguardo alle quali la Commissione dispone già di informazioni in forma di indizi sufficientemente seri che inducono a sospettare un’infrazione alle regole della concorrenza.
|
20 |
Whilst, in order not to compromise the effectiveness of its enquiry, the Commission is not obliged to mention that evidence in its request for information, the Court may verify its existence and review its sufficiently serious nature where an application to that effect is brought before it and where it considers that the company puts forward factors capable of casting doubt on the sufficiently serious nature of the evidence concerned.
|
Pur se la Commissione non è tenuta a menzionare tali indizi nella sua richiesta di informazioni, per non compromettere l’efficacia della sua indagine, il Tribunale può verificarne la sussistenza e controllare che siano sufficientemente seri, qualora sia investito di una domanda in tal senso e ritenga che la società adduca elementi idonei a mettere in dubbio il carattere sufficientemente serio degli indizi.
|
21 |
Taking the view that those conditions were satisfied in the present case, the Court carried out the verification applied for by Cementos Portland Valderrivas.
|
Considerando che tali condizioni ricorressero nella fattispecie il Tribunale ha proceduto alla verifica richiesta dalla Cementos Portland Valderrivas.
|
22 |
Within the framework of its assessment of the sufficiently serious nature of the evidence, the Court takes account of the fact that the contested decision is part of the framework of the preliminary investigation stage (the phase intended to allow the Commission to gather the relevant information confirming, or not, the existence of an infringement of the rules on competition and to adopt an initial position on the course and on the remainder of the procedure).
|
Nell’ambito della sua valutazione della sufficiente serietà degli indizi, il Tribunale tiene conto del fatto che la decisione impugnata si inserisce nella fase di istruzione preliminare (fase destinata a consentire alla Commissione di raccogliere gli elementi pertinenti idonei a confermare o meno l’esistenza di un’infrazione alle regole della concorrenza e di prendere una prima posizione sull’orientamento e sul prosieguo del procedimento).
|
23 |
The Court deduces from this that the Commission is not obliged, before making a request for information, to have in its possession information establishing the existence of an infringement.
|
Il Tribunale ne deduce che la Commissione non è tenuta, prima dell’adozione di una richiesta di informazioni, ad avere in suo possesso elementi che dimostrino l’esistenza di un’infrazione.
|
24 |
It is therefore sufficient that the evidence is such as to arouse a reasonable suspicion of the occurrence of an infringement so that the Commission may request additional information.
|
È quindi sufficiente, perché la Commissione possa chiedere informazioni supplementari, che gli indizi siano atti a generare un ragionevole sospetto circa il verificarsi di un’infrazione.
|
25 |
Since the evidence provided by the Commission satisfies that requirement, the Court rejects the action of Cementos Portland Valderrivas.
|
Poiché gli indizi forniti dalla Commissione rispondono a tale definizione, il Tribunale respinge il ricorso della Cementos Portland Valderrivas.
|
26 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
27 |
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of the General Court within two months of notification of the decision.
|
Contro la decisione del Tribunale, entro due mesi a decorrere dalla data della sua notifica, può essere proposta un'impugnazione, limitata alle questioni di diritto, dinanzi alla Corte.
|
28 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
29 |
An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to EU law.
|
Il ricorso di annullamento mira a far annullare atti delle istituzioni dell’Unione contrari al diritto dell’Unione.
|
30 |
The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court.
|
A determinate condizioni, gli Stati membri, le istituzioni europee e i privati possono investire la Corte di giustizia o il Tribunale di un ricorso di annullamento.
|
31 |
If the action is well founded, the act is annulled.
|
Se il ricorso è fondato, l'atto viene annullato.
|
32 |
The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act. |
L'istituzione interessata deve rimediare all’eventuale lacuna giuridica creata dall’annullamento dell’atto. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
••
The General Court confirms, on the whole, the lawfulness of the requests
for information sent by the Commission to cement manufacturers
The Court nevertheless partially accepts one of the actions on the
basis of the inadequacy of the time-limit for responding and provides details on
the assessment of the non-arbitrary nature of a request for information
In November 2008 and September 2009, the Commission carried out inspections
on the premises of several companies operating in the cement sector.
On 6 December 2010, the Commission opened against several cement undertakings
a procedure relating to presumed infringements consisting of ‘restrictions on
trade flows in the European Economic Area (EEA), including restrictions on
imports in the EEA coming from countries outside the EEA, market-sharing, price
coordination and related anti-competitive practices in the cement market and
related product markets’.
Within the framework of that procedure, on 30 March 2011 the Commission
adopted several decisions in order to ask the undertakings concerned to respond,
in a binding format, to a questionnaire relating to those presumptions of
infringements.
The German companies Holcim Deutschland, HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement,
the Swiss company Holcim, the Italian companies Buzzi Unicem and Italmobiliare,
the Spanish company Portland Valderrivas and several companies belonging to the
Cemex group brought seven actions for annulment of those decisions.
They allege, inter alia, that the Commission failed to provide an adequate
explanation of the presumed infringements referred to in the contested decisions
and that it imposed on them a disproportionate workload in relation to the
volume of information requested and the particularly binding response format.
In its judgments of today’s date, the Court rejects those actions, with the
exception of the action brought by the company Schwenk Zement, which is
partially accepted.
The Court takes the view that the presumed infringements, although set out in
very general terms which might well have been made more precise, have the
minimum degree of clarity in order to be able to be considered to be consistent
with the requirements of EU law.
Likewise, the Court observes that the size of the workload caused by the
volume of information and the very high degree of precision in the response
format imposed by the Commission cannot be reasonably disputed.
However, the Court concludes that that workload is not disproportionate in
the light of the necessities of the enquiry and the extent of the presumed
infringements.
The Court nevertheless takes the view that the time-limit of two weeks
granted to Schwenk Zement to respond to the 11th series of questions is
insufficient, so much so that the action brought by that company is partially
accepted.
The Court notes in that regard that the assessment of the sufficient nature
of the time-limit for responding entails taking into account the risk of a fine
or of a periodic penalty payment incurred by the addressee of the request not
only where that addressee fails to provide information or provides incomplete or
late information, but also where the information provided is considered by the
Commission to be inaccurate or distorted.
The time-limit granted must, therefore, allow the addressee to give a
substantive response, but also to ensure the complete, accurate and
non-distorted nature of the information provided.
Noting that the 11th series of questions entails the identification of all
the contacts (including highly informal ones) established over several years by
the employees of Schwenk Zement with the producers of cement and of related
products or their representatives, the Court observes that the collection,
organisation and verification of the information requested were not necessarily
easy in the present case and infers from this that the time-limit of two weeks
granted by the Commission was insufficient.
The company Cementos Portland Valderrivas disputed the arbitrary nature of
the request for information, submitting that it is exploratory.
It therefore asked the Court to order the Commission to produce the evidence
which led it to make that request.
On this occasion, the Court notes that the requirement of protection against
arbitrary or disproportionate interventions of public authorities in the sphere
of private activities of a person (whether natural or legal) constitutes a
general principle of EU law which must be respected in making any request for
information.
As a consequence, such a request must seek to collect the necessary
documentation in order to verify the truth and the scope of situations of fact
and of law in respect of which the Commission already has information in the
form of sufficiently serious evidence consistent with the suspicion of an
infringement of the rules on competition.
Whilst, in order not to compromise the effectiveness of its enquiry, the
Commission is not obliged to mention that evidence in its request for
information, the Court may verify its existence and review its sufficiently
serious nature where an application to that effect is brought before it and
where it considers that the company puts forward factors capable of casting
doubt on the sufficiently serious nature of the evidence concerned.
Taking the view that those conditions were satisfied in the present case, the
Court carried out the verification applied for by Cementos Portland Valderrivas.
Within the framework of its assessment of the sufficiently serious nature of
the evidence, the Court takes account of the fact that the contested decision is
part of the framework of the preliminary investigation stage (the phase intended
to allow the Commission to gather the relevant information confirming, or not,
the existence of an infringement of the rules on competition and to adopt an
initial position on the course and on the remainder of the procedure).
The Court deduces from this that the Commission is not obliged, before making
a request for information, to have in its possession information establishing
the existence of an infringement.
It is therefore sufficient that the evidence is such as to arouse a
reasonable suspicion of the occurrence of an infringement so that the Commission
may request additional information.
Since the evidence provided by the Commission satisfies that requirement, the
Court rejects the action of Cementos Portland Valderrivas.
NOTE:
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of
Justice against the decision of the General Court within two months of
notification of the decision.
NOTE:
An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of
the European Union that are contrary to EU law.
The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under
certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or
the General Court.
If the action is well founded, the act is annulled.
The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment
of the act.
|