29The basic amounts, including the amount of at least EUR 20 million for infringements classified as ‘very serious’, are applied even if the undertakings concerned are SMEs. The consequence of that ‘flat-rate’ approach in this case is that the fine imposed on the applicant is significantly higher, in relation to total turnover, than those imposed in other comparable cases with regard to the gravity of the infringement. In support of that argument, the applicant refers to a number of decisions, in which the Commission imposed relatively lower fines (Commission Decision 98/273/EC of 28 January 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/35.733 — VW) (OJ 1998 L 124, p. 60, hereinafter ‘the Volkswagen decision’); Commission Decision 1999/210/EC of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/F-3/33.708 — British Sugar pic, Case IV/F-3/33.709 — Tate & Lyle pic, Case IV/F-3/33.710 — Napier Brown & Company Ltd, Case IV/F-3/33.711 — James Budgett Sugars Ltd) (OJ 1999 L 76, p. 1, hereinafter ‘the British Sugar decision’)); Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/35.691/E-4 — Pre-insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1, hereinafter ‘the Pre-insulated pipe decision’)). Thus, the fine imposed on the applicant is up to 280 times higher, in relation to its turnover, than that imposed in the British Sugar decision. In other words, the Guidelines are illegal in that they lead, in comparable cases in terms of gravity, to disproportionate fines in relation to turnovers.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.