Short Reads

UK High Court held that territorial limits apply to EU cartel damages claims

UK High Court held that territorial limits apply to EU cartel damages claims

UK High Court held that territorial limits apply to EU cartel damages claims

02.06.2016

On 23 May 2016, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ("High Court") delivered its judgment in the damages case against six defendants that had participated in two cartels involving cathode ray tubes. The High Court found that the claimants' damages, based on purchases of the cartelised products in Asia fell outside the territorial scope of the cartel prohibition of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU"). Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the claim in full.

Cathode ray tubes ("CRT") are components that used to be incorporated in television and computer screens before the widespread use of LCD screens. On 19 October 2011, the European Commission issued a decision in which it found that several producers of CRTs had formed a cartel in the downstream CRT market in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Subsequently, on 5 December 2012, the Commission issued a decision in which it found that several producers of CRTs had formed a cartel in the downstream CRT market in breach of Article 101 TFEU.

In proceedings before the High Court, claimant Iiyama Group ("Iiyama"), a seller and distributor of computer monitors, sought compensation from the participants of both cartels for the alleged damages it had suffered as a result thereof. Iiyama had indirectly purchased the CRT and CRT glass incorporated in those monitors in Asia, therefore outside of the EEA.

Iiyama argued that because it had sold the monitors containing the CRT and CRT glass into the European Economic Area ("EEA"), there was a sufficient connection between its indirect purchases of CRT and CRT glass outside of the EEA and the damages allegedly suffered from the breach of EU competition law.

The High Court dismissed these arguments. It ruled that sales outside of the EEA fell outside of the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU. Furthermore, the sales forming the basis of Iiyama's claim were insufficiently connected to the EEA. They could not be viewed as the "implementation" in the EEA of an alleged non-EEA cartel, as they were effected outside the EEA and incorporated in products sold outside the EEA. The High Court also held that the sales had no immediate, substantial and foreseeable effect on any EEA markets.

The judgment is important as it confirms that the territorial limit of Article 101 TFEU applies to damages claims based on violations of EU competition law as well. The High Court’s ruling will make it more difficult for claimants to achieve compensation in Europe for damages in relation to non-EEA sales.

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

  1. General Court rejects Trioplast's action for annulment of a Commission notice to pay interest
  2. Commission blocked Hutchison's proposed acquisition of Telefónica UK
  3. General Court confirmed that German law on renewable energy amounts to State aid
  4. European Commission publishes guidance on the notion of State aid
  5. District Court of Rotterdam upheld the ACM's unconditional clearance decision in telecoms merger KPN/Reggefiber
  6. Rotterdam District Court considered "franchise agreements" in breach of competition law in launderette cartel case

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

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