Short Reads

Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel

Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel

Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel

01.02.2017 NL law

Competition Law Newsletter of February 2017

On 18 January 2017, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment on Toshiba's appeal against the General Court's ("GC") judgment of 9 September 2015, by which the GC partially annulled the European Commission's cathode ray tubes cartel decision [see our October 2015 Newsletter]. By its appeal, Toshiba claimed that it was not in a position to exercise decisive influence over its joint venture ("JV") with Panasonic throughout the duration of the infringement and that it should not be held liable for the infringement committed by the JV. The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and confirmed the fine imposed jointly and severally on Toshiba and Panasonic.

The Court found that where it follows from the statutory provisions governing the JV that its conduct on the market was decided jointly by the parent companies, it may reasonably be concluded that the conduct was indeed determined jointly by these parents, unless there is concrete evidence showing the contrary.

The Court also held that the GC was not required to determine whether Toshiba had actually influenced the JV operational management in order to establish that Toshiba and the JV formed a single economic unit. The holder of a veto right over certain decisions must necessarily be consulted prior to the adoption of any decision which it can veto. Consequently, the mere fact that Toshiba never exercised its veto rights, should not be construed as if it did not exercise decisive influence over the conduct of the JV. Notably, the Court found that the fact that some veto rights concern the protection of a minority shareholder should not alter the conclusion.

The Court of Justice finally confirmed that the GC correctly held that factors such as the fact that Toshiba could (i) appoint one of the two directors entitled to represent the JV and (ii) prohibit the JV form taking decisions involving expenses, regardless of how relatively modest these expenses might appear in light of the JV's capital, constitute an indication of the capacity to exercise decisive influence over the JV. However, the Court did not examine whether these factors were sufficient to establish the single economic unit as that would go beyond its powers in the context of an appeal.

With its judgment, the Court of Justice has provided further clarification on the concept of a parent company's decisive influence over a joint venture and its liability for the JV's cartel law infringements. 

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 clarifies rules on evidence in bathroom fittings cartel judgments
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

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

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

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

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