Articles

Court of Justice confirmed that cartel facilitators can be liable under Article 101 TFEU in AC-Treuhand

Court of Justice confirmed that cartel facilitators can be liable under Article 101 TFEU in AC-Treuhand

Court of Justice confirmed that cartel facilitators can be liable under Article 101 TFEU in AC-Treuhand

03.11.2015

On 22 October 2015, the Court of Justice rendered a judgment on appeal against the Commission decision in the Heat Stabilisers cartels (Commission v AC-Treuhand AG C-194/14 P). In this landmark judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that a fine can be imposed under Article 101 TFEU on a consulting firm that provided services to the cartelists but is not present on the market where the infringements were committed.

On 11 November 2009, the Commission held AC-Treuhand liable for a total fine of EUR 348,000 for its participation in the Heat Stabilisers cartels. AC-Treuhand challenged the Commission decision before the General Court ("GC"), claiming that it provided certain services to the cartel but did not participate in an agreement or concerted practice. The GC, however, upheld the Commission decision and ruled that a consulting firm can be liable for an infringement of Article 101 when it actively and intentionally contributes to a cartel. This is the case even if the firm is present on a market other than the cartelised market.

AC-Treuhand appealed before the Court of Justice, arguing that its contracts with the cartelists had the object to provide services and that it did not participate in an agreement or concerted practice. Contrary to the Opinion of Advocate-General Wahl, the Court of Justice confirmed the judgment of the GC. According to the Advocate-General, AC Treuhand was not liable under Article 101 since it never exercised a competitive restraint on the participants of the cartel and thus was not able to restrict competition on the market in question.

The Court of Justice emphasized that Article 101 covers all agreements and concerted practices that distort competition, "irrespective of the market on which the parties operate and that only the commercial conduct of one of the parties need be affected by the terms of the agreements in question". Further, the Court of Justice found that AC-Treuhand's conduct was directly linked to the efforts of the cartelists. The purpose of the services was to attain, in full knowledge of the facts, the anti-competitive objects of the infringements. As a result, the Court of Justice concluded that AC-Treuhand did not provide mere peripheral services that were unconnected to the obligations assumed by the producers and the restrictions of competition. In its reasoning, the Court of Justice also considered that AC-Treuhand's interpretation of Article 101 "would be liable to negate the full effectiveness of the prohibition".

Further, the Court considered that, although Article 101 was never applied to cartel facilitators at the time of the infringements, AC-Treuhand could and should have expected that its conduct would infringe EU competition rules. The legality principle was thus not infringed.

AC-Treuhand also contested the imposition of a lump sum fine by the Commission. It argued that this constitutes a derogation from the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the Commission could have based the fine on the fees charged for the services provided to the participants of the infringements. The Court of Justice, however, also agreed with the GC's reasoning and rejected these arguments. The Court of Justice held that deviating from the Guidelines was permitted in this instance because AC-Treuhand was not present and had no sales on the cartelised market.  Further, it deemed that the fees charged by AC-Treuhand do not accurately reflect either the economic importance of the infringement or the extent of AC-Treuhand's participation.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2015. Other articles in this newsletter:

Back to top

Team

Related news

06.02.2020
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring