by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner
In Elf Aquitaine SA v Commission, the European Court of Justice ruled on 29 September 2011 that Elf Aquitaine was not jointly and severally liable as a parent company for the involvement of its wholly owned subsidiary in the cartel for monochloroaecetic acid. Taken with a number of recent judgments, this suggests that European courts are getting tougher with the Commission on parental liability.
To read the full article, click here.
by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner and David Henry
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 14 June 2011 followed a case that originated in Germany. Pfleiderer, a firm in the wood industry, was considering a damages claim against members of a paper cartel. It sought access to the cartel files held by the German Competition Authority (FCO) in order to substantiate its claim. A dispute followed over whether disclosing the documents of companies who had cooperated with the FCO would undermine the national leniency programme since potential leniency applicants would fear eventual disclosure.
A German court asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling whether or not the provisions of EU competition law are to be interpreted as meaning that cartel victims can be granted access to leniency applications received by an EU Member State competition authority.
The ECJ has held that it was for the courts and tribunals of each EU Member State on the basis of their own national law to determine the conditions under which such access must be permitted or refused by weighing the interests protected by EU law. The upshot of this ruling is therefore that each judge in each Member State has a discretion as to what type of leniency document can be disclosed to a cartel victim. The ECJ has therefore distanced itself from recommendations made by the Advocate General who suggested that documents which existed before the cartel was uncovered could be disclosed but said that submissions drafted for the purpose of revealing the infringement should be protected.
For leniency applicants, weighing the decision whether to apply for leniency has now become even more complex. On the one hand, a potential leniency applicant stands to benefit from immunity, or a reduction, from fines. On the other hand, it will now have to take into consideration not only the remaining risk of a fine and criminal sanctions but also the the fact that private damages claimant might get easier access to incriminating evidence. Such complexity is all the more greater given that the ECJ’s ruling may lead to different results in different European countries.
by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner and David Henry
The European Court of Justice recently expanded upon the scope of the law in relation to pricing practices of vertically integrated companies. The ruling impacts dominant, vertically integrated companies active both within and outside regulated markets, such as telecoms. All dominant, vertically integrated undertakings on both sides of the Atlantic must be sure to tailor their commercial pricing policies in such manner that they comply with the EU dominance rules.
To read the full article, please visit: https://mwe.com/info/news/bb030911.htm.
by Andrea L. Hamilton and Wilko van Weert
A recent Decision of the European Court of Justice shows once more that it is still next to impossible for a parent company to rebut the presumption of liability for its subsidiary’s conduct. Nevertheless, companies with subsidiaries operating in the EU would be well-served to consider reinforcing their compliance programmes throughout their groups. Reinforcing compliance is more likely to reduce competition law risks for parent companies than, for example, a strategy of distancing itself from its subsidiaries.
To read the full article, please visit: https://www.mwe.com/info/news/bb0211l.htmhttps://www.mwe.com/info/news/bb0211l.htm
Subscribe
