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

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