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

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