Short Reads

Court of Justice dismisses Toshiba's appeal against the gas-insulated switchgear fine

Court of Justice dismisses Toshiba's appeal against the gas-insulated

Court of Justice dismisses Toshiba's appeal against the gas-insulated switchgear fine

01.08.2017 NL law

On 6 July 2017, the European Court of Justice dismissed an appeal brought by Toshiba regarding its participation in the gas-insulated switchgear (GIS) cartel, upholding the General Court's (GC) judgment of 19 January 2016 and making the fine imposed on Toshiba final. The judgment shows that the European Commission is able and willing to repair any breach of the principle of equal treatment in the rare occasions in which this leads to the annulment of a fining decision.

Background of the dispute

In January 2007, the Commission imposed fines amounting to EUR 750 million on twenty European and Japanese companies for in essence reserving the EU market for the European producers and the Japanese market for the Japanese producers, including Toshiba.

On 12 July 2011, the GC partially annulled the 2007 decision on the ground that the Commission had infringed the principle of equal treatment in the calculation of the fine imposed on Toshiba by taking a different reference year than for the European members of the cartel. The Commission subsequently re-imposed the fines using the correct reference year, following a simple letter of facts and without issuing a new Statement of Objections (SO).

Toshiba's appeal against the new Commission decision was entirely dismissed by the GC in 2016. This judgment has now been confirmed by the Court of Justice.

No infringement of Toshiba's rights of defence

The Court of Justice held that the applicant's right to be heard was satisfied by simply issuing a letter of facts and not a second SO. In its reasoning, the Court of Justice found that the re-imposition of the fine was merely an extension of the 2007 procedure and the partial annulment of the original Commission decision did not affect the validity of the preparatory measures.

Interestingly, the Court confirmed that, though "it may be desirable", the parties' right to be heard does not require the Commission to specify "the way in which it proposes to employ the imperative criteria of the gravity and the duration of the infringement when determining the amount of the fines".

No error in the calculation of the fine

The Court of Justice also dismissed Toshiba's arguments with regard to the calculation of the fine.

Although Toshiba's fine was calculated under the old Commission Fining Guidelines, it is interesting to note that the Court confirmed the use of the starting amount of the fine assigned to TM T&D, the 50:50 joint venture in which Toshiba had transferred its GIS activities in 2002. Since following the transfer of activities to TM T&D, Toshiba had no sales in 2003 – the relevant reference year for the calculation of the fine – its fine could not be calculated in the exact same manner as that of the European producers. In addition, calculating a virtual 2003 turnover for Toshiba by splitting TM T&D's turnover and comparing it to the actual turnover of the European cartel participants, as Toshiba proposed, would not appropriately reflect the weight in the infringement that was exerted through TM T&D.

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

1. Recent enforcement action demonstrates an increasing focus on compliance with procedural EU merger rules
2. Trade and Industry Appeals annuls fine imposed on real estate traders
3. District Court of Rotterdam upheld ACM's decision to clear lottery merger
4. ACM closes probe into Fox over live-soccer TV rights due to lack of evidence of consumer harm
5. District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspect digital data

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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