Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 - Viega
   v Commission

   (Case T-375/06)

   Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper
   and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of
   Article 81 EC - Participation in the infringement - Duty to state
   reasons - Fines - Relevant turnover - Attenuating circumstances

   1.                     Competition - Agreements, decisions and
   concerted practices - Burden of proof - Degree of precision required of
   the evidence used by the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 32-34)

   2.                     Competition - Agreements, decisions and
   concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Burden of proof
   - Statement of an incriminated undertaking challenged by other parties
   to the same agreement - Probative value - Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC)
   (see para. 35)

   3.                     Competition - Administrative procedure -
   Commission decision finding an infringement - Burden of proving the
   infringement and its duration on the Commission - Extent of the burden
   of proof (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 36)

   4.                     Competition - Agreements, decisions and
   concerted practices - Participation of an undertaking in
   anti-competitive initiatives - Tacit approval without public distancing
   sufficient to render the undertaking liable (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para.
   52)

   5.                     Competition - Agreements, decisions and
   concerted practices - Agreements and concerted practices constituting a
   single infringement - Burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC)) (see para. 70)

   6.                     Competition - Agreements, decisions and
   concerted practices - Relevant market - Delimitation - Criteria (Art.
   81(1) EC) (see para. 81)

   Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180
   of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and
   Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 - Fittings), and
   also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the
   applicant in that decision.

   Operative part

   The Court:

   1.

   Dismisses the action;

   2.

   Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.