Short Reads

Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart ca

Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

01.10.2018 EU law

On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

In September 2014, the Commission imposed fines on Infineon, Philips, Renesas and Samsung for their alleged involvement in a single and continuous infringement in the market for smart card chips. According to the Commission, the companies coordinated their pricing behaviour through bilateral contacts on pricing, production capacity, future market conduct and customers from 2003 to 2005.

Infineon (and, separately, Philips) appealed the Commission's decision before the General Court. In its appeal, Infineon specifically requested the General Court to examine whether it actually participated in the infringement at issue and, if so, the precise extent of that participation. It argued that the Commission had violated the principle of proportionality by setting the amount of the fine without taking into account the small number of bilateral contacts in which Infineon participated. On 15 December 2016, the General Court dismissed the appeals in their entirety [see our January 2017 Newsletter].

In its action before the Court of Justice, Infineon complained that the General Court examined only five of the eleven allegedly unlawful bilateral contacts whereas Infineon had disputed all those contacts. Infineon argued that this incomplete and selective judicial review was unlawful and resulted in an insufficient review of the fine.

The Court of Justice first ruled that the General Court did not err by establishing an infringement on the basis of only a limited number of contacts. However, the Court sided with Infineon as regards the – insufficient – assessment of the amount of the fine. The Court recalled that EU courts have unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the assessment of fines. The courts must therefore examine all factual and legal arguments raised on appeal which seek to show that the amount of the fine is not proportional to the gravity or the duration of the infringement. One relevant factor that must be taken into account in this context is the number and intensity of the incidents of anticompetitive conduct.

The Court of Justice ruled that the General Court should have assessed Infineon's pleas on the proportionality of the fine imposed in relation to the number of contacts involving Infineon. It therefore referred the case back to the General Court for it to examine whether the Commission established the six contacts on which the General Court had not yet adjudicated.

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

1. EFTA Court offers guidance for assessing national limitation periods for follow-on damages claims
2. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision
3. UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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