Short Reads

General Court rules on the concept of a single and continuous infringement in the smart card chips cartel case

General Court rules on the concept of a single and continuous infringement in the smart card chips cartel case

General Court rules on the concept of a single and continuous infringement in the smart card chips cartel case

02.01.2017 NL law

Competition Law Newsletter of January 2017

On 15 December 2016, the General Court ("GC") dismissed the appeals brought by Infineon and Philips in the smart card chips cartel case. The European Commission had imposed fines totalling €138 million on Infineon, Philips and two other manufacturers of smart card chips for taking part in bilateral contacts during which commercially sensitive information was discussed. With regard to the appeal lodged by Infineon, the GC held that although Infineon engaged in a few bilateral contacts with only two of the cartel members, it had participated in the single and continuous infringement.

Between September 2003 and September 2005, the smart card chips producers Infineon, Philips, Renesas and Samsung exchanged information on prices, customers, production capacity and future market conduct during bilateral contacts. The GC upheld the Commission's finding that the information exchanged was commercially sensitive and capable of influencing the commercial strategy of competitors. Furthermore, the GC found that the parties shared a single anticompetitive objective, which was to slow down the price decrease on the smart card chips market. The links of complementarity between the bilateral contacts, particularly the common discussions on pricing and capacity, the identity of the participants and the timing of the contacts, were found to provide evidence that these contacts formed part of the same overall plan.

Consequently, the GC confirmed that all smart card chips producers participated in a single and continuous infringement. However, in contrast to the case concerning Philips, there was no evidence that Infineon was aware of the bilateral contacts between some of the other cartel participants, or could reasonably have foreseen them. The GC ruled that the finding of a single and continuous infringement must be distinguished from the question as to whether an undertaking is liable for that infringement in its entirety. Despite the fact that there was a single and continuous infringement, Infineon was not held liable for the infringement as a whole. Therefore, the GC rejected Infineon's claims that the Commission misapplied the concept of a single and continuous infringement.

The judgment confirms the high risks involved in bilateral contacts with competitors on information capable of reducing commercial uncertainty. When such contacts are linked to similar contacts between other competitors, companies can be found to have participated in a single and continuous infringement, even when there is no evidence that they were aware of those other contacts.

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

1. Envelope maker's cartel fine annulled in first successful European settlement appeal
2. District Court of Limburg rules that damages claims in the Dutch prestressing steel case are time-barred
3. ACM established guiding principles in relation to sustainability arrangements
4. Belgian Competition Authority confirms that the acquisition by a dominant player of a small competitor is not automatically an abuse of a dominant position

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