Article 41 - Right to good administration
Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Article 51 - Field of application
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
Key facts of the case:
The Competition and Consumer Authority had submitted a proposal to the Market Court under which a penalty payment amounting to over EUR 30 million should be imposed on seven coach companies, the bus sector lobby group Finnish Bus and Coach Association and Matkahuolto (a service and marketing company promoting bus and coach services in Finland). In 2010-2015, the companies had sought to maintain their status in the market and to prevent the access to the market of competitors by excluding new regular services from Matkahuolto’s timetable and ticket purchase services as well as parcel delivery services. The Market Court found that the companies had operated a cartel and ordered each of the parties involved in the cartel to pay a EUR 100,000 penalty payment for prohibited restriction of competition. The cartel companies appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Competition Authority also appealed, because it considered the fines imposed were insufficient. In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court applied the Competition Act, TFEU as well as the relevant case law of the CJEU. The references to the Charter were included in the court’s discussion concerning fair trial, the rights of the defence and the principle of equal treatment.
Key legal question:
The Supreme Administrative Court considered whether the penalty payments were justified and what would be the right amount of the fine for each respondent company.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Administrative Court found that the anti-competitive behavior of the companies prevented the liberalization of the market and delayed opening it up to competition. The court increased the amount of the financial penalties imposed on the respondent companies to a total sum of EUR 8,9 million. Heavier fines were imposed on Matkahuolto (EUR 4,3 million) and Koiviston Auto (EUR 2,3 million) which is one of the largest bus companies in Finland. The payments imposed on the smaller bus companies and the Finnish Bus and Coach Association varied between EUR 100,000 and EUR 600,00.
The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Market Court had not fully assessed the nature and extent, degree of gravity, and the duration of the infringement on an individual basis, taking into account the conduct of each of the companies involved. The amount of the penalty payment must be in proportion to the gravity of the infringement, in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 47 of the Charter. The Market Court’s decision did not take into account the varying sizes and turnovers of the companies involved. This was contrary to the principle of equal treatment of the respondent companies, within the meaning of the relevant anti-trust case law of the CJEU. Some of the companies had requested an oral hearing. The Supreme Administrative Court assessed the request in light of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, Article 47 of the Charter, Article 6-1 of the ECHR and the relevant case law of the ECtHR. The court concluded that an oral hearing was not necessary because the Market Court had held an oral hearing in the first instance.
(626) The case raises the question, among others, whether Matkahuolto, the coach companies in question and the Finnish Bus and Coach Association have shared the market in violation of Article 101 TFEU. The Supreme Administrative Court notes that according to Article 51-1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, with regard to its field of application, the provisions of the Charter apply to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. Considering this, the request for an oral hearing as a part of a fair trial in the current case concerning the application of the Union competition rules must be assessed in light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 47 of the Charter.
(671) The Supreme Administrative Court notes that in considering the current case and appeals against the Market Court decision, the necessity of an oral hearing is not assessed on the basis of section 38-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, as suggested by Matkahuolto, but on the basis of section 37 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act as well as paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6-1 of the ECHR which are binding on the Supreme Administrative Court in this assessment.
(706) The presumption of innocence constitutes a general principle of EU law, as enshrined in Article 48, paragraph 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Member States are required to observe this principle when they implement EU competition law. The principle applies to the procedures relating to infringements of the competition rules applicable to undertakings that may result in the imposition of fines.
(792) Although Article 41 of the Charter is, according to its wording, not addressed to the Member States but to the institutions, bodies and offices of the Union, the said provision expresses the general principle of the right to good administration in EU law.
When implementing EU law, the right to good administration gives rise to requirements, such as the right of any person to have his or her affairs handled impartially.
(1476) Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court finds that it is not apparent from the Market Court’s decision, in which way the Market Court has, when applying EU competition rules in the current case, seen to it that it, in accordance with the case law of the CJEU, satisfies the requirements arising from Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, when conducting a review in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, based on all issues of fact and law, in order to show that the penalty payment is commensurate with the gravity of the infringement.
(626) Asiassa tulee ratkaistavaksi muun ohella, ovatko Matkahuolto, kysymyksessä olevat linja-autoyhtiöt ja Linja-autoliitto jakaneet markkinat SEUT 101 artiklassa kielletyllä tavalla. Korkein hallinto-oikeus toteaa, että unionin perusoikeuskirjan soveltamisalaa koskevan 51 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaan perusoikeuskirjan määräykset koskevat jäsenvaltioita ainoastaan silloin, kun ne soveltavat unionin oikeutta. Tähän nähden on kysymystä suullisen käsittelyn toimittamisesta osana oikeudenmukaista oikeudenkäyntiä esillä olevassa unionin kilpailusääntöjen soveltamista koskevassa asiassa tarkasteltava myös unionin perusoikeuskirjan 47 artiklan ensimmäisen ja toisen kohdan kannalta.
(671) Korkein hallinto-oikeus toteaa, että sen käsitellessä esillä olevaa asiaa markkinaoikeuden päätöksestä tehdyistä valituksista suullisen käsittelyn toimittamisen tarvetta ei, toisin kuin Matkahuolto on esittänyt, arvioida hallintolainkäyttölain 38 §:n 1 momentin, vaan hallintolainkäyttölain 37 §:n sekä korkeinta hallinto-oikeutta tässä arvioinnissa sitovan Euroopan unionin peruskirjan 47 artiklan ensimmäisen ja toisen kohdan sekä Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 6 artiklan 1 kappaleen kannalta.
(706) Syyttömyysolettama on niin ikään unionin oikeuden yleinen periaate, josta määrätään perusoikeuskirjan 48 artiklan 1 kohdassa ja jota jäsenvaltioilla on velvollisuus noudattaa, kun ne panevat täytäntöön unionin kilpailuoikeutta. Tätä periaatetta sovelletaan yrityksiä koskevien kilpailusääntöjen rikkomiseen liittyviin menettelyihin, jotka voivat johtaa sakkojen määräämiseen
(792) Vaikka perusoikeuskirjan 41 artiklaa ei ole sanamuotonsa mukaan osoitettu jäsenvaltioille, vaan unionin toimielimille, elimille ja laitoksille, ilmentää mainittu määräys unionin oikeuden yleistä hyvää hallinto koskevaa periaatetta. Hyvää hallintoa koskevasta oikeudesta johtuu unionin oikeutta täytäntöönpantaessa vaatimuksia, muun muassa jokaisen oikeus saada asiansa käsitellyksi puolueettomasti.
(1476) Korkein hallinto-oikeus katsoo näin ollen, että markkinaoikeuden päätöksestä ei käy ilmi, miten markkinaoikeus on unionin kilpailuoikeutta esillä olevaan asiaan soveltaessaan unionin tuomioistuimen oikeuskäytännön mukaisesti huolehtinut unionin perusoikeuskirjan 47 artiklan mukaisista täyteen harkintavaltaansa kuuluvista vaatimuksista tutkia kaikki oikeudelliset ja tosiseikat sen määrittämiseksi, että seuraamuksen määrä on asianmukainen rikkomuksen vakavuuteen nähden.
