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 rejects Trioplast's action for annulment of a Commission notice to pay interest

General Court rejects Trioplast's action for annulment of a Commission notice to pay interest

General Court rejects Trioplast's action for annulment of a Commission notice to pay interest

02.06.2016 EU law

On 12 May 2016, the General Court (“GC”) dismissed an action for annulment brought by Trioplast Industrier AB (“Trioplast”) against a letter from the European Commission putting Trioplast on notice to pay interest on a fine imposed following an infringement of the cartel prohibition. The GC confirmed that interest accrues from the moment that the Commission initially imposes a fine, even if during subsequent appeal proceedings the amount of the fine is reduced.

The GC also ruled that a court order giving due effect to the outcome of related proceedings does not affect the Commission's ability to impose default interest.

In November 2005, the Commission imposed a fine on one of Trioplast's subsidiaries, Trioplast Wittenheim, for its participation in anticompetitive practices in the industrial bag sector. As Trioplast Wittenheim's parent company, Trioplast was held jointly and severally liable for an amount of EUR 7.73 million. Trioplast Wittenheim's former parent companies, FLSmidth and FLS Plast (“FLS”), were also held liable for part of the fine. Trioplast decided not pay the fine at once and provided a bank guarantee instead.

Trioplast and FLS separately appealed the decision of the Commission. In September 2010,  the GC reduced the fine imposed on Trioplast to EUR 2.73 million. In addition, the  GC pointed out that the outcome of FLS's appeal might warrant a further adjustment of the fine imposed on Trioplast, and that it would fall to the Commission to do so.

In August 2012, Trioplast made a provisional payment of EUR 2.73 million. However, it refused to pay interest over that amount as it was of the opinion that the GC had annulled the 2005 decision and that interest could only start to accrue after the Commission made a new decision. When  the Commission sent Trioplast a final notice to pay interest, Trioplast brought an action for annulment before the GC. In the alternative, Trioplast claimed damages from the Commission in the amount of the default interest and charges it had incurred in providing a bank guarantee.

The GC, however, declared Trioplast's action for annulment to be inadmissible. It found that by sending the final notice, the Commission did not adopt an act producing binding legal effects capable of affecting Trioplast's interests, but "merely confirmed the conditions to which the Commission made the suspension of payment of the fine subject during the [FLS] legal proceedings". After the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the FLS proceedings, the original Commission decision also became binding on Trioplast. This ended the suspension of payment of the fine, thereby obliging Trioplast to pay the fine immediately.

With regard to the action for damages, the GC ruled that it was Trioplast's own choice to provide a bank guarantee. If it had paid the fine immediately, Trioplast would not have had to pay the default interest. The GC ruled that there was therefore no causal link and rejected Trioplast's claim for damages, thereby following its long-standing case law on the non-contractual liability of EU institutions.

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

  1. Commission blocked Hutchison's proposed acquisition of Telefónica UK
  2. General Court confirmed that German law on renewable energy amounts to State aid
  3. European Commission publishes guidance on the notion of State aid
  4. District Court of Rotterdam upheld the ACM's unconditional clearance decision in telecoms merger KPN/Reggefiber
  5. Rotterdam District Court considered "franchise agreements" in breach of competition law in launderette cartel case
  6. UK High Court held that territorial limits apply to EU cartel damages claims

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