umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

General Court confirms fines imposed in maritime hose cartel

General Court confirms fines imposed in maritime hose cartel

General Court confirms fines imposed in maritime hose cartel

02.08.2016 NL law

On 14 July 2016, the General Court ("GC") reset the fine that had been imposed on Parker Hannifin Manufacturing ("Parker ITR") and Parker-Hannifin Corp ("Parker-Hannifin") for participating in the marine hoses cartel. In this judgment – on referral from the Court of Justice – the GC largely confirmed the fines initially imposed by the Commission in 2009.

In this case, the central legal question concerns the liability of undertakings for an infringement, complicated by an internal transfer of the infringing assets and subsequent sale to third parties. In January 2002, ITR first transferred the assets of its rubber hose business to its 100% subsidiary ITR Rubber, which was subsequently acquired by Parker Hannifin and renamed Parker ITR. For the infringement prior to the acquisition date, the Commission fined Parker ITR because it was considered to be the economic successor of the marine hose business. Parker appealed to the GC, arguing that the principle of economic continuity cannot apply since Parker ITR had no structural links with ITR. The GC agreed and annulled the decision in so far as it found Parker ITR liable for the infringement prior to 1 January 2002.

However, on appeal, the Court of Justice ruled that the relevant structural links were those between ITR and ITR Rubber (and not the links with Parker), as these were the parties to the asset transfer. On the date of the internal asset transfer, such structural links did exist between ITR and ITR Rubber. Hence, the principle of economic continuity applies, unless Parker could rebut the presumption that ITR exercised decisive influence over ITR Rubber. The Court of Justice referred the case back to the GC to examine whether Parker had submitted sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.

Parker argued before the GC that ITR Rubber had acted independently on the market, for which it brought forward three different grounds: (i) ITR Rubber had no economic activities until ITR's marine hose business was transferred, (ii) during the one-month interim period (between the asset transfer and acquisition) the SPA between ITR and Parker Hannifin prohibited ITR Rubber from taking any actions that would affect the interests of the buyer, and (iii) the interim period would be too short for ITR or Saiag to exercise control over ITR Rubber. However, the GC dismissed all three arguments, thereby reaffirming that in practice it is very difficult the rebut the presumption of decisive influence when there are structural links between two legal entities. As Parker did not succeed in demonstrating the absence of decisive influence, the principle of economic continuity applied. Consequently, the GC ruled that Parker ITR was liable for the infringing conduct of its predecessor ITR and reaffirmed the fine initially imposed by the Commission.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice clarifies the legality of royalty payments in the event of revocation or non-infringement of the licensed patent 
  2. General Court confirms fines imposed on the basis of economic continuity in maritime hose cartel 
  3. European Commission imposes record cartel fine on truck manufacturers for price fixing 
  4. European Commission deems support measures in favour of Dutch football clubs in line with State aid rules 
  5. Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages arising from antitrust infringements committed by their subsidiaries 
  6. ACM lowered fines in the pepper cartel case 
  7. Dutch Supreme Court confirms the availability of a passing-on defence in antitrust damages litigation 
  8. Brussels Court of Appeal rules that concerted lobbying efforts of cement producers do not breach competition law 
  9. Belgian competition authority upholds licence refusal to football club White Star

Source: Competition Law Newsletter August 2016

Team

Related news

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
Game over? Gaming companies fined for geo-blocking

Short Reads - The Commission’s cross-border sales crusade seems far from over. The EUR 7.8 million fine imposed on distribution platform owner Valve and five PC video games publishers for geo-blocking practices is the most recent notch in the Commission’s belt. Food producer Mondelĕz may be next on the Commission’s hit list: a formal investigation into possible cross-border trade restrictions was opened recently.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepts jurisdiction in competition law damages case concerning Greek beer market

Short Reads - On 16 February 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) set aside a judgment of the Amsterdam District Court (the District Court) in which the District Court declined jurisdiction over the alleged claims against Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken N.V. (Heineken), in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB).

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
ECJ clarifies limits of antitrust limitation periods

Short Reads - Companies confronted with antitrust investigations and fines may find safeguard behind the rules governing limitation periods (often termed ‘statutes of limitation’). However, two preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that those rules are not necessarily set in stone. According to the ECJ, national time limits relating to the imposition of antitrust fines may require deactivation if these limits result in a ‘systemic risk’ that antitrust infringements may go unpunished.

Read more

29.01.2021 NL law
Publicatie en inwerkingtreding Uitvoeringswet Screeningsverordening buitenlandse directe investeringen

Short Reads - Op 4 december 2020 is een uitvoeringswet in werking getreden die bepaalde elementen uit de Verordening screening van buitenlandse directe investeringen in de Unie regelt en zorgt dat Nederland voldoet aan de verplichtingen uit die verordening. Ook is er een conceptwetsvoorstel toetsing economie en nationale veiligheid verschenen. 

Read more