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
Articles

Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings

Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings

Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings

02.02.2016 NL law

On 21 January 2016, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment on appeal brought by three legal entities of the Galp Energía group ("Galp"). Galp sought the annulment of a General Court ("GC") judgment partially upholding a 2007 Commission decision fining Galp for its participation in the Spanish penetration bitumen cartel. 

The Court of Justice partially set aside the GC judgment, ruling that the GC erred in law by exceeding its unlimited jurisdiction to set the amount of the fine because it relied on evidence not used in the Commission decision. Accordingly, the  Court of Justice reduced the fine imposed on Galp. Furthermore, it held that the GC breached its obligation to adjudicate cases within a reasonable time, and reaffirmed that the only effective remedy for this breach is an action for damages before the GC.

In the contested judgment, the GC ruled that the Commission had failed to establish Galp's participation in two components of the cartel: (i) a system for monitoring the implementation of the agreements and (ii) a compensation mechanism to correct deviations from the arrangements. Nevertheless, the GC concluded that Galp was aware of the participation of other members in these two components of the cartel. The GC deduced this from a statement from Galp's bitumen sales director, which had not been used by the Commission in order to establish Galp's liability. Taking into consideration Galp's awareness of the two cartel components, the GC only reduced Galp's fine by 4 per cent.

The Court of Justice ruled that the GC breached its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003, by relying on evidence not used in the contested Commission decision. When exercising their unlimited jurisdiction, EU Courts are empowered to substitute their own assessment for that of the Commission in relation to the determination of the amount of a penalty. However, the Court of Justice held that the scope of that unlimited jurisdiction is strictly limited to the amount of the fine and excludes any alteration of the constituent elements of the lawfully determined infringement. Consequently, the GC erred in law when it relied on the sales director's statement, as it was not used by the Commission to prove Galp's awareness of the two cartel components. Finding no evidence of Galp's awareness of these components in the contested decision, the Court of Justice further reduced the fine. Instead of the 4 per cent reduction granted by the GC, the Court of Justice lowered Galp's fine by 10 per cent.

Galp also argued that the GC's judgment should be annulled because the GC did not adjudicate the case within a reasonable time. The Court of Justice acknowledged that the length of the GC proceedings – five years and nine months – was excessive and could not be justified by the nature, complexity or context of the case. However, the  Court of Justice did not annul the GC judgment, considering that the only effective remedy for this breach is an action for damages before the GC.

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

  1. Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes
  2. Court of Justice clarified the concept of a concerted practice for unilateral announcements
  3. Court of Justice dismissed Toshiba's appeal in the power transformers cartel case
  4. Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid
  5. German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

Team

Related news

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

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

07.01.2021 NL law
Commission evaluates Antitrust Damages Directive: to be continued

Short Reads - On 14 December 2020, the Commission published a report on the implementation of the Antitrust Damages Directive (the Directive). The Commission observes a significant increase in antitrust damages actions since the adoption of the Directive. However, there is insufficient experience with the new Directive to properly evaluate its application. Instead, the Commission provides a concise overview of the implementation of some key aspects of the Directive.

Read more