umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Industrial plastic-bag makers lose out on EUR 800,000 at European Court of Justice

Industrial plastic-bag makers lose out on EUR 800,000 at European Cou

Industrial plastic-bag makers lose out on EUR 800,000 at European Court of Justice

04.01.2019 NL law

Companies awaiting the outcome of appeal proceedings should carefully consider whether to pay the imposed fine by bank guarantee or direct payment. The European Court of Justice recently ruled that companies cannot blame the EU for losses incurred from having to pay extra bank guarantee costs as a result of excessively long appeal proceedings.

As companies are free to replace the payment by a bank guarantee, they are also free to terminate it once they foresee that proceedings may take longer than initially anticipated.

On 13 December 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled on three separate appeals against the General Court judgments in actions for damages brought by industrial plastic-bag makers Gascogne, Kendrion, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez (joined cases). The Court of Justice overturned the General Court decision awarding more than EUR 800,000 in compensation for material damages for the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within reasonable time, upholding only EUR 16,000 for compensation for non-material damages suffered by the companies as a result of the delay.

In 2017, the General Court awarded the companies compensation for the damage that they had suffered as a result of excessively long court proceedings on their challenges to cartel fines [see our February 2017 Newsletter for the Gascogne appeal]. The companies argued that the delay led to higher costs to fund the bank guarantees covering the cost of the unpaid fines, as well as compensation for non-material damage. The General Court ordered the EU to pay compensation to the companies for (i) the material damage resulting from having to pay the costs of the bank guarantee during the period in which the reasonable time for adjudication had been exceeded; and (ii) the non-material damage arising from the prolonged state of uncertainty in which they found themselves during the proceedings. 

The EU and the companies, with the exception of Kendrion, appealed the General Court's judgments. The Court of Justice upheld the EU's appeal finding that there was no causal link between the fault committed by the General Court and the damage suffered by the companies. Under Article 340 TFEU, the EU may incur in non-contractual liability if three cumulative conditions are met: (i) the conduct of the EU institution is unlawful, (ii) there is damage to an individual, and (iii) there is a causal link between such conduct and the damage.

The Court of Justice considered that the EU was not liable for the costs that the plastic-bag makers incurred as a result of providing and maintaining the bank guarantees in favour of the Commission, which they had chosen for the payment of fines. Nothing prevented the companies from terminating the bank guarantee at any time, especially when the companies were aware that the judgment would be delivered later than initially expected, resulting in higher costs. According to the Court of Justice, there was not a sufficiently direct causal link between the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time and the losses incurred by the companies as a result of paying the bank guarantee charges during the extended period.

This judgment sends a clear message that damages claims will be carefully reviewed by EU courts and provides guidance on the circumstances under which damages can be awarded. Even if it is accepted that the EU violated its obligation to adjudicate within reasonable time, in cases where companies choose to pay by a bank guarantee, establishing a causal link between potential damages and the illegality of excessive length in EU proceedings appears to be almost impossible.

 

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

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
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

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

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more