Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
Kayseri escort
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

Still standing: annulled Commission decision remains in force for non-appellant

Still standing: annulled Commission decision remains in force for non

Still standing: annulled Commission decision remains in force for non-appellant

06.06.2019 NL law

Steel producer Lucchini's claim for reimbursement of a EUR 14 million fine, on the basis that the decision was annulled on appeal from other parties, was recently rejected by the General Court.

By not appealing, the decision became final for Lucchini, even if the other parties managed to obtain annulment. Companies contemplating appeals, after either a European Commission decision or a General Court judgment, should think twice before deciding not to join other addressees in their appeal efforts.

The saga has lasted more than 15 years, but it may be the end of the road for Lucchini. In 2002 the Commission adopted a cartel decision against 11 Italian steel manufacturers. Annulled once, the decision was reissued and then appealed again. Faced with rejection from the General Court, some appellants went further to the Court of Justice, but Lucchini surrendered. However an unexpected twist followed – the Court of Justice annulled the decision based on a breach of the rights of defence. Lucchini tried to profit from the result of the Court of Justice judgment by asking for the reimbursement of its fine, a request which the Commission rejected. Unfortunately for Lucchini, the General Court agreed with the Commission.

The judges restated that, to ensure legal certainty is safeguarded, if an addressee does not appeal a decision, then that decision becomes final concerning that party, irrespective of what happens for other parties. The General Court rejected the argument that the decision was 'non-existent' after annulment. Such cases are entirely exceptional and only seen if the irregularity affecting the decision is so serious that it cannot be tolerated by the legal order of the European Union. This was not applicable to Lucchini's case.

Companies fined by the Commission should take heed of the fact that, especially when the decision is appealed by other parties, choosing not to appeal entails serious consequences. Companies pursuing this avenue should not expect to draw advantages from other appeals, as the exceptional cases in which this may be possible are extremely rare.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

03.12.2020 NL law
The next 5 years: European Commission launches New Consumer Agenda

Short Reads - Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission is already looking ahead to set its consumer protection priorities for the next five years. Key points in the New Consumer Agenda include equipping consumers with better information on product sustainability, digital transformation, effective enforcement, safety concerning products ‘made in China’ and protecting particularly vulnerable consumers such as children, older people or those with disabilities. The New Consumer Agenda is a follow-up to the 2018 New Deal for Consumers.

Read more

11.11.2020 EU law
Innovatie en staatssteun. Het CBb leidt de weg bij de belangrijke definities industrieel onderzoek en experimentele ontwikkeling

Short Reads - Het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (“CBb”) heeft op 6 oktober 2020 in een subsidiegeschil nadere invulling gegeven aan het onderscheid tussen “industrieel onderzoek” en “experimentele ontwikkeling”. Dit onderscheid staat centraal in nationale subsidieregelingen en Europese staatssteunregels die overheidsinvesteringen in onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie (“O&O&I”) mogelijk moeten maken.

Read more

03.12.2020 NL law
On the right track? GC sends mixed messages with Lithuanian Railways

Short Reads - The essential facilities doctrine imposes on holders of indispensable facilities a duty to deal with their competitors. While a railway track may seem essential, a track’s removal does not fall under this doctrine if carried out by a monopolist manager of a state-developed facility bearing a statutory obligation to grant third parties access to its facilities. According to the General Court, the Commission was therefore correct to use the general framework for abuse of a dominant position to assess the Lithuanian railway operator’s removal of a railway track.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Belgian prohibition on abuse of economic dependence comes into force and new fining guidelines

Short Reads - In 2019, Belgium introduced legislation banning abuse in relationships between companies where there is no dominant position, but rather a position of economic dependence. The act entered into force on 22 August 2020. This category of restrictive practice applies alongside the existing prohibitions on cartels and abuse of a dominant position. It opens up new opportunities but also new threats for companies that are not in a dominant position.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures

Short Reads - Companies beware: the turnover of a joint venture buying a target is not necessarily decisive for determining whether the EU merger thresholds are met. The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s 2017 decision prohibiting the joint acquisition of Cemex’s Hungarian and Croatian subsidiaries by cement companies HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their full-function joint venture (JV).

Read more