Short Reads

Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel

Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel

Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel

01.07.2016 NL law

On 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice ("the Court") dismissed two appeals brought by Evonik Degussa GmbH ("Degussa") and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG ("SKW Holding") concerning the Commission decision relating to the calcium carbide cartel. The Court’s judgments deal with the concept of the liability of a parent company holding all or almost all capital in a subsidiary. The judgments confirm that there is a high threshold to rebut the presumption that a parent company has actually exercised decisive influence over its subsidiary.

 

In 2009, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a price-fixing cartel on the calcium carbonate and magnesium market between 2004 and 2007. In particular, the Commission found that SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH ("SKW") had participated directly in the cartel. Due to the fact that SKW was a subsidiary of Degussa between April 2004 and August 2004, and of SKW Holding between September 2004 and January 2007, the Commission also held these subsequent parent companies liable for SKW’s participation. After the General Court (“GC”) dismissed most of their grounds of appeal against the decision in 2014, both Degussa and SKW Holding appealed to the Court [see our February 2014 newsletter].

Degussa had explicitly instructed SKW not to participate in any competition law infringement. The GC, rather counter-intuitively, found that the fact that SKW participated in the infringement in contravention of Degussa's instructions was a strong indication of the actual exercise of decisive influence by Degussa over SKW. Degussa objected to this reasoning. The Court of Justice sided with Degussa, stating that although an express instruction can be a strong indication of the actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent over a subsidiary, the fact that a subsidiary does not comply with that explicit instruction cannot be regarded as such an indication. Despite this, the Court held that Degussa had failed to prove that it was SKW's normal practice not to carry out instructions from its parent company. Therefore, the Court concluded that the GC had not erred in law in finding that Degussa had failed to rebut the presumption that it exercised decisive influence over SKW.

SKW Holding argued in its appeal that its right to be heard was infringed because the Hearing Officer refused a request for a closed hearing during the administrative proceedings before the Commission. SKW Holding had wished to put forward arguments concerning the role of Degussa in the period following the sale of SKW to SKW Holding, without Degussa being present during such hearing. The Hearing Officer had refused, arguing that SKW Holding's right of defence did not take priority over that of Degussa.

The Court held that the Hearing Officer should not have refused SKW Holding's request. As Degussa was never accused of having participated in the cartel in respect of the period following the sale of SKW to SKW Holding, it was a third party to the proceedings in respect of that period. Accordingly, Degussa's right of defence would not have been harmed. Notwithstanding this error, the Court held that SKW Holding had failed to show that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had the closed hearing been granted.

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

1. General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request
2. General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction
3.
District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
4.
Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands
5.
New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016
6.
General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

Related news

09.12.2019 BE law
Stibbe expands EU/competition practice with new partner Sophie Van Besien

Inside Stibbe - Brussels, 9 December 2019 – Stibbe welcomes EU law, competition, and regulated markets lawyer Sophie Van Besien as a new partner in its Brussels office. Her expertise will enhance Stibbe’s service offering in the Benelux and contribute to the further development of its EU/competition and regulated markets practice. Sophie joins Stibbe on 9 December 2019.

Read more

05.12.2019 NL law
Big tech firms entering banking: be careful what you wish for

Short Reads - Big tech firms, whether entering or already active on payments markets, are under scrutiny. PSD2 has opened up the payments markets to non-bank companies, but this comes with both risks and opportunities. EU regulators are examining anticompetitive risks, for example the possibility of leveraging a strong position in one market into another market. Competition, innovation, privacy and security for financial transactions will all be hot topics as scrutiny increases on providers of payment services.

Read more

09.12.2019 BE law
Stibbe versterkt EU/competition praktijk met nieuwe vennote Sophie Van Besien

Inside Stibbe - Brussel, 9 december 2019 – Stibbe verwelkomt Sophie Van Besien, gespecialiseerd in Europees recht, mededingingsrecht en gereguleerde markten, als nieuwe vennote in het Brusselse kantoor. Sophie’s expertise zal Stibbe’s dienstverlening in de Benelux versterken en bijdragen aan de verdere ontwikkeling van zijn EU/competition en regulated markets praktijk. Sophie vervoegt Stibbe op 9 december 2019.

Read more

09.12.2019 BE law
Stibbe renforce sa pratique de droit européen et de la concurrence par la venue de Sophie Van Besien en qualité d’associée

Inside Stibbe - Bruxelles, le 9 décembre 2019 –  Stibbe a le plaisir d’accueillir Sophie Van Besien, avocate spécialisée en droit européen, droit de la concurrence et des marchés réglementés, en qualité de nouvelle associée au sein de son cabinet bruxellois. Son expertise permettra d’enrichir les prestations actuelles du cabinet au Benelux et de contribuer au développement de son activité en droit européen et en droit de la concurrence ainsi que des marchés réglementés. Sophie Van Besien rejoint Stibbe ce 9 décembre 2019.

Read more

05.12.2019 NL law
Walking a thin line: cooperation and collusion

Short Reads - Buying groups are under attack from competition authorities across Europe. Joint buying arrangements are aimed at strengthening participating companies' bargaining power towards their trading partners, usually resulting in lower prices or better quality for consumers. However, these buying arrangements must stay on the right side of the line between legitimate cooperation and anticompetitive collusion. Competition concerns may arise if the participating companies have a significant degree of market power or coordinate their conduct.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring