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

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

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