Short Reads

General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons

General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state rea

General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons

01.08.2018 NL law

On 13 July 2018, the General Court annulled the EUR 1.13 million fine imposed on Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Stührk) by the European Commission in 2013 for Stührk's participation in the shrimp cartel. The Court ruled that the Commission had failed to adequately state reasons in the contested decision as to why the cartel participants were granted divergent fine reductions.

On 27 November 2013, the Commission fined four North sea shrimp traders a total of EUR 28.7 million for making price fixing agreements and sharing sales volume information between 2000 and 2009, which constituted a single and continuous infringement. The Commission reduced the individual fines on the basis of paragraph 37 of the fining guidelines, which allows it to depart from the methodology set out in the fining guidelines if this approach can be justified by the peculiarities of a given case.

In 2014, Stührk appealed the decision and sought to annul both the decision and the fine on the basis of nine grounds of appeal. In one of the grounds of appeal, Stührk claimed that the Commission had erroneously concluded that it could be held liable for the infringements committed by the other three participants. The General Court held that the Commission may attribute liability for the single and continuous infringement as a whole to an undertaking participating in only some anticompetitive acts, if that participant was aware of all the other infringements committed by the other participants or could reasonably foresee those infringements and was prepared to take the risk. The Court ruled that, as Stührk had obtained price information from Klaas Puul through Heiploeg, it must have been aware that the coordination of prices with Heiploeg extended beyond its relationship with Heiploeg and at least included Klaas Puul. Therefore, the Court rejected this ground of appeal and ruled that the Commission was right to consider Stührk liable for the anticompetitive acts committed by the other participants comprising the single and continuous infringement.

However, the General Court went on to annul the fine imposed on Stührk on the basis of the last ground of appeal, complaining that the Commission had applied the reductions under paragraph 37 of the fining guidelines contrary to the principle of equal treatment. Stührk argued that the Commission had granted the other participants a greater reduction of their respective fines, despite their larger roles in the cartel. The Court held that where the Commission exercises its wide margin of discretion to grant a fine reduction under paragraph 37 of the fining guidelines, the duty to state reasons is all the more important to properly assess whether the Commission observed the principle of equal treatment. Subsequently, the Court introduced an ex officio ground that the Commission had failed to state reasons. According to the Court, it was unclear which criteria the Commission had used for calculating the respective fine reductions, to the extent that the participants were not able to contest the Commission's approach nor was the Court able to assess whether the principle of equal treatment had been applied. To conclude, the Court ruled that the Commission had failed to provide adequate reasoning within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU in determining the fines and therefore annulled the fine imposed on Stührk.

The judgment clarifies the requisite degree of awareness of, or ability to foresee, anticompetitive acts committed by other participants in establishing liability. In addition, the judgment once more  underlines the duty of the Commission to adequately state reasons for its fine decisions [see our January 2017 Newsletter].

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  3. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 4.34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  4. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  5. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  6. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB
  7. Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

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