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

04.01.2019 NL law
Guess what, online branding restrictions are on the Commission's radar

Short Reads - Companies are probably aware of the Commission's eagerness to clamp down on online resale price maintenance and geo-blocking restrictions. The recent fine for vertical restraints by clothing company Guess marks a new dot on the Commission's radar. Restrictions on retailers using a supplier's brand names for online search advertising purposes are just as much a no-go.

Read more

08.01.2019 EU law
Belgium's Energy & Climate Plan - What is the legislative framework for climate policy in Belgium?

Articles - On 19 December 2018, Belgium adopted the first version of the National Energy & Climate Plan, which is a compilation of three individual climate plans from each of Belgium’s regions. It contains specific measures aiming to reduce CO2 emissions in Belgium by 35% by 2030 and to increase the share of renewable energy to 18.3%. The Plan will be submitted to the European Commission and, at the same time, presented to the population, stakeholders, parliaments, and neighboring countries.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Partial fine reduction for Deutsche Telekom and Slovak Telekom for abuse of dominance

Short Reads - The General Court recently clarified that to establish a margin squeeze in the case of positive margins, the Commission needs to prove the exclusionary effects of the dominant company's pricing practices. It also indicated that in cases of refusal to grant access, it is not always necessary to establish the indispensability of the access.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Short Reads - Two recent publications confirm that it is possible for companies to cooperate with a European Commission investigation and still comply with the data protection rules. It is also possible for the Commission to deviate from certain data protection obligations in the interest of a competition law investigation. The tightrope between data protection and Commission investigations may not be as rigid as initially feared.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decision

Short Reads - The General Court recently dismissed the appeal brought by Canal+ against the decision of the European Commission making the commitments of Paramount legally binding. In 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections alleging that certain geo-blocking clauses in licensing agreements between film studios and pay-TV broadcasters had the object of restricting cross-border competition.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring