24.3.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/11

(Case C-681/11)

2012/C 89/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt

Respondents: Schenker & Co AG, ABX Logistics (Austria) GmbH, Logwin Invest Austria GmbH, Logwin Road + Rail Austria GmbH, Alpentrans Spedition und Transport GmbH, Kapeller Internationale Spedition GmbH, Johann Strauss GmbH, Wildenhofer Spedition und Transport GmbH, DHL Express (Austria) GmbH, G. Englmayer Spedition GmbH, Internationale Spedition Schneckenreither Gesellschaft mbH, Leopold Schöffl GmbH & Co KG, Express-Interfracht Internationale Spedition GmbH, Rail Cargo, A. Ferstl Speditionsgesellschaft mbH, Spedition, Lagerei und Beförderung von Gütern mit Kraftfahrzeugen Alois Herbst GmbH & Co KG, Johann Huber Spedition und Transportgesellschaft mbH, Keimelmayr Speditions- u. Transport GmbH, ‘Spedpack’-Speditions- und Verpackungsgessellschaft mbH, Thomas Spedition GmbH, Koch Spedition GmbH, Maximilian Schludermann, in his capacity as insolvency administrator for the assets of Kubicargo Spedition GmbH, Kühne + Nagel GmbH, Lagermax Internationale Spedition Gesellschaft mbH, Morawa Transport GmbH, Johann Ogris Internationale Transport- und Speditions GmbH, Traussnig Spedition GmbH, Treu SpeditionsgesmbH, Spedition Anton Wagner GmbH, Gebrüder Weiss GmbH, Marehard u. Wuger Internat. Speditions- u. Logistik GmbH

Questions referred

1.May breaches of Article 101 TFEU committed by an undertaking be penalised by means of a fine in the case where the undertaking erred with regard to the lawfulness of its conduct and that error is unobjectionable?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

1a.Is an error with regard to the lawfulness of conduct unobjectionable in the case where the undertaking acts in accordance with advice given by a legal adviser experienced in matters of competition law and the erroneous nature of the advice was neither obvious nor capable of being identified through the scrutiny which the undertaking could be expected to exercise?

1b.Is an error with regard to the lawfulness of conduct unobjectionable in the case where the undertaking has expectations as to the correctness of a decision taken by a national competition authority which examined the conduct under review solely on the basis of national competition law and found it to be permissible?

2.Are the national competition authorities competent to declare that an undertaking participated in a cartel which infringes European Union competition law in a case where no fine is to be imposed on the undertaking on the ground that it has requested to be heard as a cooperative witness?