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

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more