Communication: judgment No. 0117 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020CA0117
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
3
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



16.5.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/3


Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence

(Case C-117/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Postal services - Tariff system adopted by a universal service provider - Fine imposed by a national postal regulator - Fine imposed by a national competition authority - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Non bis in idem principle - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the non bis in idem principle - Duplication of proceedings and penalties - Conditions - Pursuit of an objective of general interest - Proportionality)

(2022/C 198/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Autorité belge de la concurrence

Intervening parties: Publimail SA, European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a legal person from being fined for an infringement of EU competition law where, on the same facts, that person has already been the subject of a final decision following proceedings relating to an infringement of sectoral rules concerning the liberalisation of the relevant market, provided that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the two competent authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner within a proximate timeframe; and that the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.


(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.