Short Reads

Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel

Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathod

Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel

02.10.2017 NL law

On 14 September 2017, the European Court of Justice dismissed the appeals brought by LG Electronics Inc. (LG) and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Philips) against the General Court's (GC) judgment in the cathode ray tubes (CRT) cartel [see our October 2015 Newsletter]. The Court of Justice confirmed that the relevant "value of sales" in the EEA includes sales of finished products incorporating the cartelised products in the EEA, even if those cartelised products were first sold to entities outside the EEA by means of intragroup sales.

The European Commission had held Philips and LG liable, both as direct participants in the cartel and as the parent companies of their joint venture, the LPD group. Firstly, Philips and LG claimed that their rights of defence had been breached because the Commission did not send a statement of objections (SO) to their joint venture. The Court confirmed that "the sending of a statement of objections to a given company seeks to ensure that the rights of defence of that company are respected, rather than those of a third party". Since the Commission had decided not to go after the joint venture, it was not required to send an SO.

Secondly, Philips and LG challenged the Commission's method of calculating the fine, in particular how it established the relevant turnover (the "value of sales" in the EEA) which is used as an important parameter in the fine calculation.

Philips and LG submitted that their joint venture sold cartelised CRTs to Philips and LG, which in turn incorporated these CRTs in monitors (the "transformed products") that were sold in the EEA. Philips and LG argued that the Commission should not have included the sales of these "transformed products", incorporating the cartelised CRT sales, in the relevant value of sales for the purposes of calculating the fine. According to Philips and LG, the sales by the LPD group to LG and Philips should not be considered "intragroup sales", but as sales from one independent entity to another.

The Court rejected these arguments and ruled that the LPD group and its parent companies formed a vertically integrated undertaking, and as such constituted a single undertaking "only as regards competition law and the relevant market for the infringement". Therefore, the sales of transformed products in the EEA by the economic unit consisting of the LPD group and its parent companies had to be included in the relevant value of sales. The Court added that vertically integrated participants to a cartel could not, solely because they incorporated the "cartel goods" into products finished outside the EEA and then sold in the EEA, expect that those sales of finished goods are excluded from the calculation of the fine.

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

  1. Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court
  2. Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"
  3. Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position
  4. Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017
  5. District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

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