7th February 2022

Restrictive agreements and abuse of dominant position – Field of application
The concept of an undertaking within the meaning of EU competition law is to be understood as referring to an economic unit even if, in law, that economic unit consists of several natural or legal persons, including employees with authority to act on behalf of the undertaking.
GC Case T-799/17 Scania AB and others, Judgment of 2 February 2022

Restrictive agreements – Continuous infringement
In finding a single and continuous infringement, the Commission does not have to establish a number of infringements each of which falls within Article 101 TFEU, but rather must demonstrate that the various instances of conduct which it has identified form part of an overall plan designed to achieve a single anticompetitive objective.
GC Case T-799/17 Scania AB and others, Judgment of 2 February 2022

Restrictive agreements –Exchanges of information
Even though the truck manufacturers, before exchanging information on gross price increases at the national level, had communicated to their dealers their intention to increase gross prices, and even though they had already taken orders on the basis of those gross prices, that does not mean that the information exchanged was not useful for their competitors, since that information was not public and disclosed the future pricing strategy of the truck manufacturers which supplied the information.
GC Case T-799/17 Scania AB and others, Judgment of 2 February 2022

Restrictive agreements –Exchanges of information
The communication from a manufacturer to its dealer network of information relating to the increases applied to the gross price lists does not cause that information to become public, since public information is objective market data that is readily accessible.
GC Case T-799/17 Scania AB and others, Judgment of 2 February 2022,

Competition procedure – Settlement
Hybrid procedures, in which the adoption of decisions are staggered over time, do not in themselves, in all circumstances, entail an infringement of the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defense or the duty of impartiality in respect of undertakings not wishing to put forward settlement proposals.
GC Case T-799/17 Scania AB and others, Judgment of 2 February 2022

Competition procedure – Presumption of innocence
The fact that the settlement decision and the contested decision are based on the same evidence as well as on the same objections as set out in the Statement of Objections, does not indicate a violation of the presumption of innocence with regard to the undertaking that did not settle, since it was given the opportunity, in the exercise of its right to be heard, to contest the Commission’s assessments.
GC Case T-799/17 Scania AB and others, Judgment of 2 February 2022

Competition procedure – Right to be heard
The fact that the undertaking that did not wish to settle was not heard during the settlement procedure does not constitute an infringement of the rights of defense, since the decision adopted during that procedure does not include any legal classification of the facts relating to the conduct of that party.
GC Case T-799/17 Scania AB and others, Judgment of 2 February 2022