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

12.05.2020 NL law
Kroniek van het mededingingsrecht

Articles - Wat de gevolgen van de coronacrisis zullen zijn voor de samenleving, de economie en – laat staan – het mededingingsbeleid laat zich op het moment van de totstandkoming van deze kroniek niet voorspellen. Wel stond al vast dat het mededingingsrecht zal worden herijkt op basis van de fundamentele uitdagingen die voortvloeien uit zich ontwikkelende ideeën over het belang van industriepolitiek, klimaatverandering en de positie van tech-ondernemingen en de platforms die zij exploiteren.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
Spreading fast: Dutch and Belgian COVID-19 State-aid approved

Short Reads - Many Member States are taking measures to support the economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The European Commission’s Temporary Framework enables the rapid approval of certain types of State aid. So far, three Dutch State aid schemes and six Belgian schemes were approved, providing the beneficiaries with legal certainty that the aid received is in line with EU State aid law and cannot be challenged at a later stage.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: no shortcut for ‘by object’ antitrust infringements

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice has found there is no shortcut for determining whether particular conduct can be held to have the object to restrict competition. A competition authority will always need to assess carefully whether the conduct reveals "a sufficient degree of harm to competition” before labelling it a ‘by object’ infringement. This is the case where there is sufficiently solid and reliable experience showing that this type of conduct is commonly regarded as being inherently anticompetitive.

Read more

28.04.2020 EU law
Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Short Reads - Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
COVID-19: fast-forwarding competition law

Short Reads - Competition authorities are temporarily ‘green-lighting’ certain collaboration initiatives to safeguard the supply of essential products in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, authorities warn against using the current exceptional circumstances to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, excessive pricing, refusals to deal or opportunistic takeovers. 

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