Isoplus sondershausen. Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, Sondershausen

About Isoplus

isoplus sondershausen

That omission is all the more serious, in their view, since the Guidelines substantially changed the law as previously in force and involved a significant increase in the amount of fines. According to the case-law, the observance of that right places no other obligation on the Commission and, in any event, certainly not the obligation to specify the way in which it envisages relying on each factor to calculate the level of the fines or any obligation to give indications as to the level of the fines. Nevertheless, the Court confirmed the amount of the fine imposed by the Commission. In particular, in paragraph 44 et seq. See also Michelin v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 19 and 20. It follows, for the present purposes, that the fine must be equal for all undertakings which are in the same situation and that different conduct cannot be punished by the same penalty. Isoplus — Your partner in Europe, the middle East and Central Asia! It follows that undertakings involved in an administrative procedure which may lead to a fine cannot acquire a legitimate expectation that the Commission will not exceed the level of fines previously applied.

Next

Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, Sondershausen

isoplus sondershausen

As is apparent from the case-law cited by that Court, the advantages which the undertakings derive from infringements of competition law form part of the factors which the Commission may take into account not only in assessing the gravity of the infringement but also in making certain that the penalty represents a sufficient deterrent, particularly in relation, as in this case, to conduct which is particularly detrimental to the functioning of the single market. Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 15 2 of Regulation No 17 is inimical to the calculation method followed by the Commission. The pleas concerning breach of the rights of the defence 166. It seems to me that, in view of the purely individual nature of the fine, it is not possible to justify failure to reduce the amount thereof to the detriment of an economic operator by reference to a corresponding increase in the fine imposed on another operator. In addition, that intensification, deriving as it does from a calculation method based on flat-rate amounts, is liable for the most part to hit small and medium-sized undertakings. They state that, by virtue of that provision, the Commission should always grant a reduction of the fine in the event of cooperation, even if it is partial and limited as in this case, where the cooperation contributed to confirming the existence of the infringement. I shall examine these pleas in the order followed earlier.

Next

Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, Sondershausen

isoplus sondershausen

The Guidelines do not in fact impose any obligation on an undertaking to incriminate itself or to provide proof of its own guilt; they merely make it clear that the fine will be increased where the undertaking refuses to cooperate in any way with Commission staff or reacts obstructively. Metsä- Serla Sales Oy, paragraph 58. Today Isoplus is the largest European manufacturer of pre-insulated piping systems for the transmission of energy with nine plants in Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Kuwait and Kazakhstan. The procedure before the Court of First Instance and the contested judgments 26. However, there is no support for such a view in the case-law. As I mentioned, the appellants also allege breach of the principle of non-retroactivity of penalties. On the contrary, it seems to me that its literal meaning is perfectly compatible both with the provisions of Regulation No 17 and with the meaning and scope of the Orkem judgment.

Next

CURIA

isoplus sondershausen

In their opinion, however, the Commission infringed that principle by not observing the practice previously followed for calculation of fines, with the result that the final amount of the fines proved to be much higher. It seems to me, however, that the analysis of that point made by the Court of First Instance is entirely acceptable. The Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the appeals and order the appellants to pay the costs. Only the Court of First Instance, therefore, has jurisdiction to examine the manner in which the Commission evaluated in each case the gravity and duration of the illegal conduct. During the administrative procedure, the appellants were not therefore able to submit any observations on the application of the new Guidelines. The procedure before the Court of First Instance and the contested judgments 4. In conclusion, I take the view that none of the criticisms made by the appellants has so far proved to be well founded, with the result that their applications cannot be upheld.

Next

▷ Barbarossa Plan Estrichbau Gmbh, Sondershausen, Construction Service & Supply

isoplus sondershausen

That said, it should also be noted that it is common ground, as correctly pointed out by the Court of First Instance, that the Commission fixed the amount of the fines by faithfully following the calculation method laid down in the Guidelines. According to certain appellants, that calculation method is contrary to Article 15 2 of Regulation No 17 and, in the present cases, gave rise to breaches of the principles of proportionality and of equal treatment, in that the amounts of the fines only partially and imperfectly observed the specific features of each case and the relative positions of the individual undertakings in the context of the cartel. Among those numerous factors for appraisal of the infringement may be included the volume and the value of the products involved in the infringement, the size and economic strength of the undertakings which committed the infringement and the influence they are able to exercise on the market, the conduct of each undertaking, the role played by each in committing the infringement, the benefit which they have obtained from such anti-competitive practices, and the economic context of the infringement, and so forth. But, I repeat, that approach falls entirely within the scheme established by Regulation No 17. As has been observed by the Court of First Instance, that reduction is a direct and inevitable consequence of the definitive limit laid down by Regulation No 17. The fines imposed by the Commission, and confirmed by the Court of First Instance, resulted, in short, from a careful and detailed analysis of the particular gravity of the infringement, its duration and also the situation, role and conduct of each of the undertakings penalised. The plea that the Guidelines are illegal 50.

Next

Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, Sondershausen

isoplus sondershausen

However, that is not the case here. Having determined the basic amount of the fine by reference only to the gravity of the infringement, the Commission then assessed the specific weight and therefore the real impact on competition of the offending conduct of each undertaking, so as to a adjust the amount of the fine to the actual capability of those participating in the infringement to undermine competition and b to ensure that the penalty had a sufficiently deterrent effect. In the first place, as can be seen from the first indent of the provision, a system of adjusting fines by reference to a lump sum does not appear to be entirely alien to the logic of Regulation No 17. Additional regional branches provide optimal service on-site. As we have seen, that did not occur.

Next

CURIA

isoplus sondershausen

In other words, the Commission decision contains all the criteria which it used in setting the amount of the fines. The pipes used are pre-insulated and, for that purpose, generally consist of a steel tube surrounded by a plastic tube with a layer of insulating foam between them. In their opinion, however, the Guidelines substantially amended the law in force without the Commission having been empowered by the Council to adopt new rules. Finally, where appropriate, the Commission applied reductions of the kind provided for in the Leniency Notice recital 166 to the contested decision. In that respect, I fully agree with what the Court of First Instance stated in paragraph 345 of the contested judgment and, therefore, I consider it superfluous to dwell further on that point. The pleas concerning breach of the rights of the defence 5. The amount thus arrived at may not in any circumstances exceed 10% of the turnover achieved in the preceding business year of each of the undertakings participating in the infringement.

Next

▷ Barbarossa Plan Estrichbau Gmbh, Sondershausen, Construction Service & Supply

isoplus sondershausen

The question must then be asked whether the abovementioned consequences of the new trend in the fines policy might not make it appropriate to steer a slightly different course so as to make certain that it is possible in every case to guarantee results that are in conformity with the general requirements of reasonableness and fairness. Reference need merely be made to the case-law of the Court of Justice, correctly cited by the Court of First Instance, to the effect that the obligation to hear undertakings is fulfilled where the Commission expressly declares in the statement of objections that it will consider whether it is appropriate to impose fines on the undertakings and it indicates the main factual and legal considerations which may give rise to a fine, such as the gravity and duration of the alleged infringement, and whether or not the infringement was committed intentionally or negligently. The Trade register entry was last updated on Sep 19, 2019. The corporate philosophy of Isoplus is «all from one source — on a turnkey basis» combined with the quality, innovative products and reliability of delivery has worked successfully for more than 40 years and, as the result, provides the leading position of isoplus at the international market. Such anti-competitive conduct had considerably undermined trade between the Member States. It is in fact clear from the Guidelines themselves that the Commission is under an obligation to follow certain steps in the procedure for calculating fines and, in particular, to take into account certain attenuating and aggravating circumstances relating to undertakings; that obligation must necessarily be reflected by the right of the undertakings concerned to expect that the Commission will actually conduct itself specifically in conformity with the Guidelines. Place your trust in verified data from the European market leader Creditreform.

Next