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

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
Swifter merger clearance and shorter merger filings in Belgium

Short Reads - Companies can expect swifter merger clearance and simpler filing rules in Belgium. The Belgian Competition Authority has published a communication with additional rules concerning the simplified procedure for certain types of concentrations. As a result, a new category of concentrations will be eligible for a simplified merger filing, leading to swifter approval and lower costs. It will also allow the BCA to focus its resources on more problematic and complex files.

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: gun jumping is double trouble

Short Reads - Companies beware: the European Court of Justice has confirmed the Commission’s practice of imposing two separate fines for gun jumping; one for failing to notify a concentration prior to its implementation, and another for implementing the concentration before obtaining clearance. The ruling underlines, once again, the increased focus of competition authorities on procedural merger control breaches – good reason for companies to keep a watchful eye on their gun jumping obligations and to take note of the possibility of two separate gun jumping fines. 

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
Commission continues cross-border trade crusade

Short Reads - The European Commission is on a roll in its fight against territorial sales restrictions. Just one month after fining broadcast network company NBCUniversal for restricting cross-border sales, it has also imposed a fine on hotel group Meliá for discriminating between customers based on nationality or place of residence. Meanwhile, the Commission is urging national consumer protection authorities to tackle cross-border issues, after an EU-wide screening of nearly 500 e-shops showed that one fifth of the flagged websites did not respect the Geo-blocking Regulation. 

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring