Short Reads

Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription

Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of

Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription

01.05.2017 NL law

On 27 April 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal brought by AkzoNobel regarding its participation in the heat stabilisers infringements. The judgment clarifies the rules concerning the liability of parent companies for the unlawful conduct of their subsidiaries.

In 2009, the European Commission imposed a fine on Akzo Nobel NV and several of its subsidiaries for infringements on the heat stabilisers market. The Commission divided AkzoNobel's participation in the infringement into three separate periods. With regard to the first infringement period, the Commission attributed liability to the ultimate parent company Akzo Nobel NV because two of its subsidiaries had participated directly in the infringement (Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Chemicals BV).

In 2010, AkzoNobel brought an action before the General Court (GC) challenging, among other things, the attribution of liability to Akzo Nobel NV for the first infringement period. In its judgment, the GC ruled that while the Commission's power to impose a fine on the subsidiaries was time-barred, this did not affect the parent company's liability [see our August 2015 Newsletter]. AkzoNobel appealed this judgment before the Court of Justice.

In its appeal, AkzoNobel relied on the case Total v Commission in which the Court of Justice held that the liability of a parent company cannot exceed that of its subsidiary when its "liability is purely derivative of that of its subsidiary" and "no other factor individually reflects the conduct for which the parent company is held liable" [see our October 2015 Newsletter]. If these conditions are met, the parent company "must, in principle, benefit from any reduction in the liability of its subsidiary which has been imputed to it."

AkzoNobel argued that the Total-conditions were met and that the parent company should benefit from the fact that the Commission was time-barred from imposing a fine on the subsidiaries. The Court of Justice, however, disagreed. First, it held that Akzo Nobel NV is regarded to have carried out the anticompetitive activities in the first infringement period itself, since it formed an economic unit with its subsidiaries. Second, it ruled that because Akzo Nobel NV continued the participation in the infringement beyond the first infringement period (with another subsidiary), this justified assessing Akzo Nobel NV's liability differently from that of Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Chemicals BV.

The judgment shows that even if a parent company’s liability results exclusively from the direct participation of its subsidiary in the infringement, the parent company cannot always benefit from defences which are available to its subsidiary.

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

  1. Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax authorities
  2. European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement in online hotel booking sector
  3. Dusseldorf Court confirms that Asics' online sales restrictions violate competition law
  4. Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements
  5. Commercial Court of Ghent grants compensation to parallel importers for competition law infringement by Honda

Team

Related news

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more