- **Example for "as an offence (not applicable)**:


- **Example for "as a defence (not applicable)**:
 - Reference: "66. In any event, Arriva arranged the meeting on 14 March 2000. However, the Director recognised from copies of training manuals and evidence that training had taken place and from documents reporting contacts with competitors that the parties both had genuine compliance systems in place which appeared to be generally followed and adhered to. As a result the penalties would be reduced by 10 per cent.
 ....The Director is normally minded to give a reduction in a penalty when a party has cooperated with his investigation. However, as both Arriva and FirstGroup benefit from the leniency programme and as a condition of being granted leniency they both agreed to co-operate with the Director, he does not consider that there should be an additional reduction in the penalties under this head to reflect that co-operation."
 - Explanation/Note: Penalties should have been reduced by 10% as a mitigating factor because both parties had genuine compliance systems in place that were generally followed. But not applicable here as they benefited from leniency programme.

 - **Example for "as a defence (allowed)**:
- Reference: "we consider that a discount for compliance is appropriate in relation to FPM...a discount of 5% is the right starting point" (Tribunal decision, para 234)
- Explanation/Note: CMA initially denied FPM a compliance discount, finding insufficient evidence of genuine cultural commitment. On appeal, the Tribunal granted a 5% discount, compared to 10% for other parties with more extensive programmes.


 - **Example for "as a defence (allowed)"**:
- Reference: "The initial fine was reduced by 10% for ITW setting up a comprehensive programme to train its staff in compliance with competition law"
- Explanation/Note: ITW received a 10% discount for setting up a comprehensive programme to train staff in competition law compliance.

 - **Example for "as a defence (denied)"**:
- Reference: "In the present case the Commission was entitled to take the view that no
mitigating circumstances applied to the applicant.
337 First of all, the mere fact that the Commission considered in previous decisions that certain factors constituted mitigating circumstances for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine does not mean that it is obliged to make the same assessment in a subsequent decision (Mayr-Melnbof v Commission, cited above, paragraph 368)."
- Explanation/Note: the Court rejected this groud of appeal on the basis that the Commission is entitled to find that the Compliance program in this case does not suffice for reduction in fine.

- **Example for "irrelevant"**:
- Reference: "In the present case, it is common ground that, in both 2002 and 2004, the appellants specifically instructed SKW not to participate in anticompetitive agreements on the market at issue. Nor is it disputed that that instruction was disregarded by SKW's executive and that its participation in the cartel for which the appellants were penalised therefore occurred in breach of that explicit and precise instruction."
- Explanation/Note: here, it does not explicitely refer to competition compliance program. Irrelevant because this case only concern parent company's instruction, but not "as directives given under a compliance programme and forming part of a general plan" (citing para 56)


 - **Example for "as a remedy"**:
- Reference: "In addition, Rogers has agreed to: Create a Consumer Awareness Campaign designed to educate its customers about how charges can be incurred on their wireless devices and the steps they can take to avoid unwanted charges, including safety tips for online purchases; and Enhance its corporate compliance program, as necessary, with respect to billing customers on behalf of third parties.

 - **Example for "unsure"**:
- Reference: "the infringement lasted at least from the beginning of March 1987 to the end of September 1989. The infringement was terminated only by the letter dated 26 September 1989 from Parker to Herlitz, after Commission officials had brought the illegal agreement to light during the investigation carried out on the premises of Herlitz on 19 and 20 September 1989 ;  ...5. during the investigations, Parker was very cooperative.At the time it declared itself ready to cease all practices that proved incompatible with Community competition law and, in September 1989, withdrew the illegal provision in its distribution agreement with Herlitz ; 6. Parker attempted in 1987 to place its relationship with its subsidiaries and its exclusive dealers on a legally unobjectionable basis by instructing a legal adviser to draw up a wideranging programme on compliance with community competition law, which was completed in 1989. However, Parker did not apply the programme to its agreement with Herlitz. Nevertheless, in order to ensure future compliance with the competition rules and in response to express representations by the Commission, Parker did in 1991 inform all its distributors in the community that they were free to supply customers outside their territory."
- Explanation/Note: unsure. No comment how compliance program by Parker was treated

 - **Example for "neutral"**:
- Reference: "(736) The Commission welcomes all steps taken by undertakings to raise awareness amongst their employees of existing competition rules. Nevertheless, neither Eisai's nor Merck's initiative can dispense the Commission from its duty to sanction the very serious infringement of competition rules committed.
(737) The Commission concludes that, with the exception of Aventis, there are no mitigating circumstances applicable to the participants in the infringements affecting the vitamin A, E, B2, B5, C, D3, beta-carotene and carotinoids markets."
- Explanation/Note: Commission acknowledges the existance of compliance program, but does not recognize it as mitigating factor.