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

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more