75It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to what is claimed by the appellant, the General Court did take into account the fact that the geographic scope of the infringement covered only two Member States and not six. However, the General Court found that, despite the more limited geographic scope, a rate of 15% was appropriate in the light, inter alia, of the nature of the infringement. It should be pointed out in that respect that, having regard to point 23 of the 2006 Guidelines, on which the General Court decided to draw in this case, the 15% multipliers for the ‘gravity of the infringement’ and for the ‘additional amount’ were warranted in view of the very nature of the infringement at issue, since, as the General Court noted, it is among the most harmful restrictions of competition for the purpose of point 23 of the 2006 Guidelines and that rate is the lowest rate on the scale of penalties prescribed for such infringements under those guidelines (in that regard, see, to that effect, judgments of 11 July 2013, Ziegler v Commission, C‑439/11 P, EU:C:2013:513, paragraphs 124 and 125, and of 11 July 2013, Team Relocations and Others v Commission, C‑444/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:464, paragraph 125). Accordingly, the appellant is wrong to criticise the General Court for having failed to take into account the geographic scope of the infringement when determining the multipliers for the ‘gravity of the infringement’ and the ‘additional amount’, and for having set those multipliers at 15%.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.