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

Related news

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission’s record fine for gun jumping upheld

Short Reads - Pre-closing covenants protecting the target’s value or commercial integrity pending merger clearance from the European Commission must be drafted carefully. The General Court confirmed the Commission’s record-breaking fines on Altice for violating the EU Merger Regulation’s notification and standstill obligations. According to the General Court, the mere possibility of exercising decisive influence over the target can result in a gun jumping breach.

Read more

21.10.2021 EU law
Law and Artificial Intelligence (part three): towards a European perspective in intellectual property? The European Parliament goes one step further…

Articles - For the European Union, it is time to have uniformed rules on artificial intelligence (AI). On 20 October 2020, the European Parliamentary Assembly adopted, on the basis of three reports, three resolutions on AI from three different perspectives. These resolutions have recently (on 6 October 2021) been published in the Official Journal.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission reveals first piece of antitrust sustainability puzzle

Short Reads - The European Commission has published a Policy Brief setting out its preliminary views on how to fit the European Green Deal’s sustainability goals into the EU competition rules. Companies keen to be green may be left in limbo by a looming clash with more far-reaching proposals from national competition authorities. More pieces of the antitrust sustainability puzzle will fall into place as soon as the ongoing review of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation is finalised.

Read more

21.10.2021 EU law
Law and Artificial Intelligence (part two): towards a European framework in line with the ethical values of the EU? The European Parliament goes one step further…

Articles - For the European Union, it is time to have uniformed rules on artificial intelligence (AI). On 20 October 2020, the European Parliamentary Assembly adopted, on the basis of three reports, three resolutions on AI from three different perspectives. These resolutions have recently (on 6 October 2021) been published in the Official Journal.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Court of Appeal provides guidance for further course of proceedings in prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 27 July 2021, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued an interim judgment in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation, ruling on three issues: (i) the obligation of claimant to furnish facts; (ii) the assignment of claims; and (iii) the liability of the parent companies. In short, the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant Deutsche Bahn another opportunity to supplement the facts needed to substantiate its claims in the next phase of the proceedings.

Read more