On April 2, 2019, the General Court dismissed an application by Swedish agricultural cooperative Lantmännen for interim measures to block the Commission from disclosing documents it had submitted in the course of the settlement procedure in the Ethanol Benchmarks[1] case to its co-defendants.[2]
The Court of Justice Dismisses Eco-bat’s Appeal and Clarifies the Applicable Time Limits for Appealing Commission Correcting Decisions
On March 21, 2019, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s dismissal of the action lodged by Eco-Bat, a British lead recycling company, against the Commission decision imposing a €32.7 million fine in the Car Battery Recycling cartel case.[1]
Credit Agricole, JPMorgan Chase Lose Fight Against EU Releasing EIRD Decision
On March 21, 2019, the Court of Justice issued two orders dismissing Crédit Agricole’s and JPMorgan Chase’s applications for interim measures requested to prevent the Commission from publishing its decision in the EIRD cartel case.[1] The parties had appealed an order issued in October 2018 by the General Court,[2] which rejected the parties’ claims that the Commission should not be allowed to publish its decision on the cartel case while a court appeal against its publication is pending.
Commission Launches New Online eLeniency Tool
On March 19, 2019, the Commission introduced eLeniency, a new online tool for submitting documents and corporate statements in the
Skanska: The Court of Justice Rules That the Principle of Economic Continuity Is Also To Be Applied in Private Damages Actions
On March 14, 2019, the ECJ held that the determination of persons liable for damages for an EU competition law infringement is governed by EU law, not national law.[1] The ECJ clarified that an acquirer company may be held liable for private damages caused by a cartel participant even after the cartel participant was subsequently liquidated, provided that the acquirer took over the assets that constituted the business. The ECJ agreed with Advocate General Wahl[2] that the principle of economic continuity should apply not only in public, but also in private antitrust enforcement.
The Commission Imposes a €368 Million Fine on Autoliv and TRW in the Occupant Safety Systems Cartels Settlement
On March 5, 2019, the Commission fined car safety equipment suppliers Autoliv and TRW €368 million for breaching Article 101 TFEU by taking part in two infringements consisting of an exchange of commercially sensitive information and illegal coordination in relation to the supply of car seatbelts, airbags, and steering wheels to Volkswagen and BMW.[1]
Balmoral Tanks Limited v CMA
On 15 February 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed Balmoral Tanks’ (Balmoral) appeal against the October 2017 CAT judgment upholding the CMA’s decision to fine Balmoral £130,000 for exchanging pricing information with three other suppliers of galvanised steel tanks at a single meeting in July 2012. Although Balmoral refused to join the cartel operated by the three other suppliers, its CEO nonetheless remained at the meeting and shared information about Balmoral’s current and future pricing intentions.
European Court of Human Rights Rules on the Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Cartels Cases
On February 14, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) found in SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, that the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court had not violated SA-Capital’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by partially relying on hearsay evidence in finding the existence and the scope of a cartel.[1] In particular, given the evidentiary complexity of cartel infringements, the ECtHR concluded that national competition authorities may use hearsay to the extent their findings do not solely depend on it.[2]
The General Court Orders the Commission To Pay Damages for Interest on a Paid, but Subsequently Annulled, Cartels Fine
On February 12, 2019, the General Court ordered the Commission to pay Printeos €0.18 million in interest on a previously paid cartel fine that was subsequently repealed by the General Court.[1]
The ICA Fines Four Operators and a Facilitator for Collusive Behavior in the Waste Collection Sector
On January 30, 2019, the ICA found that four companies rigged a public tender for regional waste collection and disposal.[1] According to the ICA, the collusion was facilitated by the intervention of a third-party consulting firm, which encouraged and coordinated the parties’ collusive behavior. In line with EU precedent, the ICA imposed a fine also on the facilitator.[2]