Short Reads

Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Samsung in the cathode ray tubes cartel

Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Samsung in the cathode ray tubes cartel

Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Samsung in the cathode ray tubes cartel

04.04.2017 NL law

On 9 March 2017, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the appeal of Samsung SDI and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) (together "Samsung") against the General Court's ("GC") ruling of 9 September 2015. The GC had earlier dismissed Samsung's appeal against the cathode ray tubes cartel decision from the European Commission [see our October 2015 Newsletter] and confirmed the fines imposed by the Commission.

The cathode ray tubes decision relates to two cartels concerning colour display tubes ("CDT") and colour picture tubes ("CPT"). The Court of Justice dismissed Samsung's appeal in its entirety and ordered Samsung to bear the costs. The Court held that the GC had given sufficient reasons for rejecting Samsung's argument that not all CPTs were the subject of the cartel during each year and as such those sales should have been excluded from the calculation of the fine. The Court of Justice found that the GC had correctly rejected this claim, as all CPTs were the subject of collusive contacts which constituted a single and continuous infringement. Under those circumstances, the fact that not all CPTs were the subject of the cartel during each separate year of the infringement did not constitute a reason to exclude the associated sales for fine calculation purposes. 

Furthermore, Samsung was of the view that in calculating the fine regarding CDTs the GC had erroneously taken into account sales that were negotiated in South Korea, which should not be considered as sales made within the EEA. However, the Court of Justice found that the GC had not erred in law and that in determining the amount of sales within the EEA it was necessary to take all deliveries made in the EEA into account. The Court took the view that if Samsung's argument was accepted then an undertaking participating in an infringement could circumvent a significant part of a potential fine simply by negotiating its sales with its customers outside the EEA.

Finally, in response to the argument to reduce the fine, based on the erroneous assessment of Samsung's contribution to the leniency programme, the Court held that it could not substitute its own assessment for that of the GC regarding the amount of fines imposed. The Court could only do so if, following a claim by the appellant, it considered that the level of fine was inappropriate and excessive to the point of being disproportionate. However, Samsung did not bring the argument alleging that the fine was disproportionate before the Court.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice rules on the Hearing Officer's competence to resolve confidentiality requests
  2. General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors 
  3. European Commission proposes a new Directive to empower national competition authorities to be more effective enforcers of EU competition law rules
  4. European Commission launches anonymous whistleblower tool
  5. District Court of Gelderland denies passing-on defense in antitrust litigation related to the GIS-cartel

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

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