Category Archives: Competition

C-580/12 P Guardian Industries: Reduction of competition fine on appeal

The judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 November 2014 in Guardian Industries Corp and Guardian Europe Sarl v Commission, C-580/12 P, EU:C:2014:2363, is a rare instance of the Court of Justice on appeal reducing the amount of a fine imposed for the breach of the competition rules that had been upheld at first instance by the General Court. Continue reading

Case C-302/13 flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines: Damages for breach of competition law, civil and commercial matters

In its recent judgment of 23 October 2014 in flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS in liquidation v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation AS, C-302/13, EU:C:2014:2319, the Court of Justice confirmed that actions brought by undertakings seeking redress or compensation for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law, come within the definition of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

Thus such actions, whether they are “follow on” or stand alone actions, are subject to the rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement contained in Regulation No 44/2001. Continue reading

Case C-408/12 P YKK Corporation and others v Commission: Calculation of competition fine, 10% legal ceiling and parent-subsidiary liability

The Court of Justice does not often interfere, on appeal, with the way fines for competition cases are calculated and scrutinised by the General Court. It will do so, however, if an error of law is made, for example.

In Case C-408/12 P YKK Corporation and others v Commission  EU:C:2014:66 the Court of Justice did find an error and it did readjust the amount of the fine imposed on a company for infringing the competition rules. Here’s what happened….

Continue reading

Case C-295 P Telefónica SA v Commission: the EU judicature’s unlimited jurisdiction in competition cases

The Court of Justice (“CoJ”) handed down its judgment in a very interesting abuse of dominance case, namely Case C-295/12 P Telefónica SA v Commission on 10 July 2014. The judgment deals with many interesting 102 TFEU related issues; so several posts will follow. In this post though, I would like to touch upon the very well-structured reiteration of the previous case-law of the CoJ regarding the EU judicature’s obligation to carry out a review exercising its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, basically Case C-386/10 P Chalkor v Commission, Case C-272/09 P KME v Commission and Case C-501/11 P Schinlder Holding  v Commission. Continue reading

Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission: Exclusivity rebates and abuse of a dominant position

Right then, folks, brace yourselves…. The much awaited judgment of the General Court in Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission EU:T:2014:472 came out today.

It’s a whopper ! 255 pages. Summarising it is reminds me of Monty Python’s sketch of the “Summarising Proust Competition“. The Court has taken the trouble to publish extracts or highlights. But even the abridged version is quite long.

There’s a lot in the judgment: substantive law, procedure, evidence, international jurisdiction….Far too much to deal with in a single post so we’ll have several instalments. Today’s will be just a basic summary and introduction.

In short, the Commission wins. And wins everything.  Continue reading

Case C-557/12 Kone AG: Cartels, damages and “umbrella pricing”

The Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-557/12 Kone AG and Others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG is an important landmark in reinforcing the efficacy of EU antitrust law. The Court holds that Member States cannot block claims for compensation by victims of “umbrella pricing”, that is to say setting of higher prices by non-cartel members as a result of a cartel.  Continue reading

Case T-30/10 Reagens SpA v Commission: unsubstantiated pleas and length of proceedings

The General Court’s judgment in Case T-30/10 Reagens SpA v Commission EU:T:2014:253 (alternative link here) doesn’t really break new ground. But it does remind applicants of a few basic truths. In some ways you can sense the impatience of the Court with applicants who forget them.

First, the Court reminds everyone that if you make a plea, you have to argue it and substantiate it. Mere assertions don’t work.

Second, don’t just complain about the duration of administrative proceedings: show how it affected your rights of the defence.  Continue reading