El TJ aclara el concepto de empresa responsable a efectos de los artículos 101 y 102 del Tratado y los derechos de defensa

En la Sentencia de 1 de Julio de 2010 (Asunto C‑407/08), la empresa sancionada por participar en un cártel alegó que “GKV and its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and the appellant, on the other, constitute an economic unit in the competition law sense and its conclusion that the appellant is the company responsible for the activities of the Knauf Group”. El TJ aclara que basta que haya “unidad económica” entre las empresas, aunque haya diversidad jurídica para que se pueda sancionar a todas ellas y que para determinarlo, valen indicios de cualquier tipo. En el caso el TG había considerado a todos responsables – había “unidad económica” – porque los accionistas últimos de las compañías eran los mismos (“the shareholders in the appellant and the other companies owned by the Knauf family, particularly those owned by GKV, are the same, namely 21 natural persons who are members of that family and a company formed by four other members of that family”); los administradores eran los mismos (“in Knauf, Mr B and Mr C, are also managing shareholders of all the companies in the Knauf Group”) y que GKV era “merely a holding company”) y que en el pacto parasocial - “family contract” – se preveía específicamente que se trataba de asegurar “the single management and direction of the companies in the Knauf Group” por lo que el hecho de que sólo una parte de las actividades del grupo se viera afectada por el cártel no excluye la responsabilidad de todo el grupo. Que una filial no lo sea al 100 % no impide considerar la existencia de una unidad económica con la matriz.

Y aclara también que los Tribunales europeos revisan toda la actuación de la Comisión de manera que "

“as regards the application of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, there is no requirement under the law of the European Union that the addressee of the statement of objections must challenge its various matters of fact or law during the administrative procedure, if it is not to be barred from doing so later at the stage of judicial proceedings….  In the absence of a specific legal basis, such a restriction is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and of respect for the rights of the defence. Moreover, the rights to an effective remedy and of access to an impartial tribunal are guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which, under the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU, has the same legal value as the Treaties. Under Article 52(1) of that Charter, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law.