Short Reads

Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel

Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glas

Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel

03.10.2016 EU law

On 7 September 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal by various entities of the Pilkington group ("Pilkington") concerning its role in the car glass cartel.

[See our January 2015 newsletter on the judgment of the General Court ("GC") in this case]. In its judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed the Commission's interpretation and application of the 2006 Fining Guidelines relating to the inclusion of sales arising from contracts outside the infringement period in the basic amount of the fine, the appropriate currency conversion methods and the proportionality of the fine to the total turnover of an undertaking.

Pilkington's first ground of appeal concerned the sales arising from contracts which pre-dated the infringement and which were not re-negotiated during that period of time. The Court dismissed Pilkington's arguments and concluded that those sales fell within the scope of the cartel for the purpose of calculating the basic amount of the fine in so far as they were capable of reflecting the economic importance of the infringement.

The Court argued that taking into account the findings of fact made by the GC in relation to the scope of the cartel, its mode of operation and its overall objective of stabilizing market shares, the GC rightly found that it was not necessary to collude on each supply contract in order to achieve that objective. The cartels' overall plan was to allocate supplies of automotive glass between the cartel participants, including existing supply contracts. As a result, if the Commission were not entitled to include the sales at issue, the resulting fines would not reflect the economic significance of the infringement.

Pilkington's second ground of appeal concerned the Commission's use of the average exchange rate of the year preceding the adoption of the decision to convert Pilkington's worldwide turnover from pound sterling to euros in the calculation of the 10% statutory ceiling of the fine.

The Court concluded that the conversion method used by the Commission is in line with the choice of the legislature that the turnover figures for the last full business year are most likely to reflect the financial capacity of an undertaking and therefore meets the objective behind the 10% statutory ceiling. The Court considered that the use of the daily exchange rate applicable on the day when the decision was adopted, as suggested by Pilkington, was "bound to be uncertain and unpredictable". In addition, it rejected Pilkington's argument that the statutory ceiling is designed to ensure absolute protection against monetary fluctuations.

The Court also dismissed Pilkington's third ground of appeal in which it essentially argued that the proportion of its fine in relation to its total turnover was significantly higher compared to the other addressees of the decision because it was not a diversified undertaking. Interestingly, the Court ruled that this result is inherent to the fine calculation method envisaged in the 2006 Fining Guidelines and that the Commission is not required to ensure that the final amounts of the fines reflect any distinction between the undertakings concerned in terms of their overall turnover. Pilkington's argument that account was taken of such considerations in other decisions of the Commission was also rejected as the Court reiterated that "the Commission’s practice in previous decisions does not serve as a legal framework for the fines imposed in competition matters".

 

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

  1. Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel
  2. General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement
  3. European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda
  4. European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple
  5. Commission publishes Preliminary Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry
  6. Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

Team

Related news

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

02.07.2018 EU law
General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

Short Reads - On 20 June 2018, the General Court rendered its judgment in two connected appeals submitted by České dráhy, the Czech Railways Operator, challenging two dawn raid decisions by the European Commission. Based on arguments concerning the scope of the investigation, the Court annulled in part the first dawn raid decision and fully upheld the second dawn raid decision.

Read more

29.06.2018 EU law
Un dossier de soumission imparfait peut-il être rectifié par le paiement d’une amende ?

Articles - Dans l’arrêt du 28 février 2018, la Cour de justice donne son avis sur la possibilité pour un soumissionnaire de rectifier, pendant la phase de sélection et moyennant paiement d’une amende, son dossier de soumission imparfait par un ajout et/ou commentaire. La Cour précise que cette mesure n’est, en principe, valable que si la nature de l’irrégularité constatée permet une rectification ultérieure et que le montant de l’amende est proportionnel à l’importance de l’irrégularité constatée. 

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring