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
Short Reads

Still standing: annulled Commission decision remains in force for non-appellant

Still standing: annulled Commission decision remains in force for non

Still standing: annulled Commission decision remains in force for non-appellant

06.06.2019 NL law

Steel producer Lucchini's claim for reimbursement of a EUR 14 million fine, on the basis that the decision was annulled on appeal from other parties, was recently rejected by the General Court.

By not appealing, the decision became final for Lucchini, even if the other parties managed to obtain annulment. Companies contemplating appeals, after either a European Commission decision or a General Court judgment, should think twice before deciding not to join other addressees in their appeal efforts.

The saga has lasted more than 15 years, but it may be the end of the road for Lucchini. In 2002 the Commission adopted a cartel decision against 11 Italian steel manufacturers. Annulled once, the decision was reissued and then appealed again. Faced with rejection from the General Court, some appellants went further to the Court of Justice, but Lucchini surrendered. However an unexpected twist followed – the Court of Justice annulled the decision based on a breach of the rights of defence. Lucchini tried to profit from the result of the Court of Justice judgment by asking for the reimbursement of its fine, a request which the Commission rejected. Unfortunately for Lucchini, the General Court agreed with the Commission.

The judges restated that, to ensure legal certainty is safeguarded, if an addressee does not appeal a decision, then that decision becomes final concerning that party, irrespective of what happens for other parties. The General Court rejected the argument that the decision was 'non-existent' after annulment. Such cases are entirely exceptional and only seen if the irregularity affecting the decision is so serious that it cannot be tolerated by the legal order of the European Union. This was not applicable to Lucchini's case.

Companies fined by the Commission should take heed of the fact that, especially when the decision is appealed by other parties, choosing not to appeal entails serious consequences. Companies pursuing this avenue should not expect to draw advantages from other appeals, as the exceptional cases in which this may be possible are extremely rare.

 

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

 

Team

Related news

12.02.2021 EU law
After the Uber case and the Airbnb case … the Star Taxi App case: focus on the question of the qualification as “Information Society Service”

Articles - Societal and digital developments are reflected in the case law of the CJEU. For several years now, European judges resolve disputes relating to digital applications and the services they provide. On 3 December 2020, they handed down a judgment in a case concerning Star Taxi App. This blog analyses the Star Taxi App case law in the light of the Uber case law and the Airbnb case law. The three judgments have in common the question of the qualification of services as Information Society Services.  

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
Game over? Gaming companies fined for geo-blocking

Short Reads - The Commission’s cross-border sales crusade seems far from over. The EUR 7.8 million fine imposed on distribution platform owner Valve and five PC video games publishers for geo-blocking practices is the most recent notch in the Commission’s belt. Food producer Mondelĕz may be next on the Commission’s hit list: a formal investigation into possible cross-border trade restrictions was opened recently.

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
ECJ clarifies limits of antitrust limitation periods

Short Reads - Companies confronted with antitrust investigations and fines may find safeguard behind the rules governing limitation periods (often termed ‘statutes of limitation’). However, two preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that those rules are not necessarily set in stone. According to the ECJ, national time limits relating to the imposition of antitrust fines may require deactivation if these limits result in a ‘systemic risk’ that antitrust infringements may go unpunished.

Read more

29.01.2021 NL law
Publicatie en inwerkingtreding Uitvoeringswet Screeningsverordening buitenlandse directe investeringen

Short Reads - Op 4 december 2020 is een uitvoeringswet in werking getreden die bepaalde elementen uit de Verordening screening van buitenlandse directe investeringen in de Unie regelt en zorgt dat Nederland voldoet aan de verplichtingen uit die verordening. Ook is er een conceptwetsvoorstel toetsing economie en nationale veiligheid verschenen. 

Read more