Short Reads

Court of Justice clarifies rules on evidence in bathroom fittings cartel judgments

Court of Justice clarifies rules evidence bathroom fittings cartel

Court of Justice clarifies rules on evidence in bathroom fittings cartel judgments

01.02.2017 NL law

Competition Law Newsletter of February 2017

On 26 January 2017, the Court of Justice delivered fourteen judgments on the appeals against the General Court's ("GC") judgments in the bathroom fittings cartel cases. The judgments shed light on the rules of evidence in EU competition law proceedings. The Court ruled that the probative value of evidence should be considered in the light of the body of evidence as a whole. In this context, the Court also clarified that two leniency statements can constitute sufficient proof if they corroborate each other. The Court also ruled on the application of the fine cap of 10% of the annual turnover in situations where a subsidiary is held individually liable for participating in a cartel violation prior to the acquisition by the parent company.

The Court judgments in the bathroom fittings case follow the GC judgments of 2013 [see our October 2013 Newsletter]. The Court dismissed the majority of the appeals in their entirety. Two appeals that were lodged by the European Commission and Laufen Austria were referred back to the GC.

The Court upheld the Commission's appeal against the GC's judgment in relation to the Sanitec group. The Court agreed with the Commission that the GC failed to conduct an overall assessment of the evidence. It concluded that the GC (i) infringed the applicable rules on evidence, (ii) failed to examine the probative value of certain documents in the case file and (iii) failed to ascertain whether the evidence, viewed as a whole, could be mutually supporting. In this respect, the Court ruled that the GC erred in law when it found that one leniency statement cannot corroborate another.

With regard to the appeal made by Laufen Austria, the Court ruled that a parent company cannot be held liable for an infringement committed by its subsidiary prior to the acquisition of that subsidiary. According to the Court, the Commission should have determined whether the part of the fine relating to the period before the subsidiary was acquired was below the fine cap of 10% of the subsidiary's own turnover.

A noteworthy aspect of several bathroom fitting cartel judgments is that the Court of Justice held that the mere fact that an infringement has a more extensive geographical scope or covers a greater number of products than another infringement does not, in itself, necessarily mean that the infringement must be classified as more serious. However, as the operative part of these judgments were shown to be well founded on other legal grounds, the Court did not set aside this part of the judgments under appeal. 

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

1. Court of Justice confirms Commission's approach in its first hybrid settlement case
2. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel
3. General Court awards damages for failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time
4. District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

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