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

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