Short Reads

Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription

Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription

01.05.2017 EU law

On 27 April 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal brought by AkzoNobel regarding its participation in the heat stabilisers infringements. The judgment clarifies the rules concerning the liability of parent companies for the unlawful conduct of their subsidiaries.

In 2009, the European Commission imposed a fine on Akzo Nobel NV and several of its subsidiaries for infringements on the heat stabilisers market. The Commission divided AkzoNobel's participation in the infringement into three separate periods. With regard to the first infringement period, the Commission attributed liability to the ultimate parent company Akzo Nobel NV because two of its subsidiaries had participated directly in the infringement (Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Chemicals BV).

In 2010, AkzoNobel brought an action before the General Court (GC) challenging, among other things, the attribution of liability to Akzo Nobel NV for the first infringement period. In its judgment, the GC ruled that while the Commission's power to impose a fine on the subsidiaries was time-barred, this did not affect the parent company's liability [see our August 2015 Newsletter]. AkzoNobel appealed this judgment before the Court of Justice.

In its appeal, AkzoNobel relied on the case Total v Commission in which the Court of Justice held that the liability of a parent company cannot exceed that of its subsidiary when its "liability is purely derivative of that of its subsidiary" and "no other factor individually reflects the conduct for which the parent company is held liable" [see our October 2015 Newsletter]. If these conditions are met, the parent company "must, in principle, benefit from any reduction in the liability of its subsidiary which has been imputed to it."

AkzoNobel argued that the Total-conditions were met and that the parent company should benefit from the fact that the Commission was time-barred from imposing a fine on the subsidiaries. The Court of Justice, however, disagreed. First, it held that Akzo Nobel NV is regarded to have carried out the anticompetitive activities in the first infringement period itself, since it formed an economic unit with its subsidiaries. Second, it ruled that because Akzo Nobel NV continued the participation in the infringement beyond the first infringement period (with another subsidiary), this justified assessing Akzo Nobel NV's liability differently from that of Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Chemicals BV.

The judgment shows that even if a parent company’s liability results exclusively from the direct participation of its subsidiary in the infringement, the parent company cannot always benefit from defences which are available to its subsidiary.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of May 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax authorities
  2. European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement in online hotel booking sector
  3. Dusseldorf Court confirms that Asics' online sales restrictions violate competition law
  4. Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements
  5. Commercial Court of Ghent grants compensation to parallel importers for competition law infringement by Honda

Team

Related news

16.02.2018 EU law
Who is a consumer? The dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation

Short Reads - On 25 January 2018, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") rendered a preliminary ruling in a case between Austrian citizen Maximilian Schrems and online social network Facebook. The ruling is important for two reasons. First, the ECJ approved a dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation. Secondly, the ECJ clarified that the special consumer forum can only be invoked by the specific consumer who is party to the contractual relationship with the professional trader.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Participation d’entreprises liées aux marchés publics: qui assume la responsabilité ?

Articles - L’avocat général Campos Sanchez-Bordona a récemment déposé des conclusions intéressante dans le cadre de l’affaire nr. C-531/A6 dont la Cour de justice a été saisie. Selon l’avocat général, des soumissionnaires qui sont liés mais qui présentent chacun une offre séparée pour un marché public déterminé n’ont pas à informer le pouvoir adjudicateur des liens existant entre eux. Il ressort en outre des conclusions que le pouvoir adjudicateur n’est pas légalement tenu de vérifier de manière active la participation d’entreprises liées à un marché public.

Read more

13.02.2018 BE law
Du nouveau en matière de « plans et programmes » !

Articles - Dans ses conclusions du 25 janvier 2018 établies dans le cadre de deux demandes de décision préjudicielle formées par le Conseil d’Etat de Belgique, l’avocat général J. KOKOTT a considéré que le périmètre de remembrement urbain en Wallonie et le règlement régional d’urbanisme en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale sont des « plans et programmes ».

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Short Reads - On 13 December 2017, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a judgment clarifying the qualification 'in scope' and 'out of scope' of documents seized by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) during dawn raids at the applicants' (Distripaints NV and Novelta NV) premises. The dawn raids were launched after a complaint by SA Durieu Coatings, which accused both distributors of colluding with its competitor Akzo Nobel.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Short Reads - On 19 January 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) published its judgment concerning an appeal brought by shoe manufacturer ASICS against a fining decision. The FCJ ruled that ASICS had infringed competition law by prohibiting its retailers from participating in price comparison websites. The judgment confirms the strict approach of German courts relating to vertical online sales restrictions.  

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy