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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more