Advertisement

April 18, 2014

Joint and Several Liability For Antitrust Fines in EU: Parent Company Can Benefit From a Reduction in Its Subsidiary’s Fine

Two separate court challenges were brought by a parent and its subsidiary, contesting the fine for which the two companies were held jointly and severally liable.  The two challenges concerned the fine imposed by the European Commission for the subsidiary’s participation in the copper and copper alloy fittings cartel.   

In the first case (Case T-386/06, Pegler v Commission), the General Court reduced the fine imposed on Pegler, a subsidiary of Tomkins, by €1 million.  In the parallel case brought by the parent (Case T-382/06, Tomkins v Commission), the General Court held that the reduction of the fine granted to the subsidiary applied to the parent, by virtue of the fact that the parent and its subsidiary constituted a single entity.  The General Court reasoned that since the Commission imputed liability on the parent based on the single entity doctrine, it follows that the reduction of the fine for the subsidiary should also be extended to the parent company.

The Commission appealed to the CJEU against the General Court’s judgment in Tomkins on several grounds.  In particular, the Commission argued that the General Court ruled ultra petita (above and beyond what had been asked of it), because the challenge brought by the parent company, Tomkins, did not raise the elements decided upon by the General Court in Pegler.  The CJEU held that “where the liability of the parent company is derived exclusively from that of its subsidiary and where the parent and its subsidiary have brought parallel actionshaving the same object, the General Court was entitled, without ruling ultra petita, to take account of [the earlier decision]” (Case C-286/11P, European Commission v Tomkins plc).

The CJEU also rejected the Commission’s argument that the two cases did not have the same object.  It ruled that the notion of the “same object” does not require the scope of the applications by both companies to be identical.  The CJEU did not elaborate, however, on the precise meaning of the expression “same object”. 

When parent companies challenge cartel fines imposed jointly and severally on themselves and their subsidiary, they will have to draft their pleadings carefully to ensure that they can benefit from this “same object” principle.

Aiste Slezeviciute, a trainee solicitor in the Brussels office, also contributed to this article.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Philip Bentley, QC, McDermott WIll Emery law Firm, Antitrust Attorney
Partner

Philip Bentley is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery/Stanbrook LLP based in its Brussels office.  He is a member of the Firm’s EU regulatory practice and European Competition and Trade Groups.  His practice focuses on EU anti-dumping, trade defense and customs, EU competition (including State aid and public procurement), EU regulatory matters, notably GMOs, and EU litigation.

32 2 282 35 27

About the Author

Partner

Philipp Werner is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.   His practice focuses on European and German competition law including State aid, merger control, cartels and abuse of dominance, and his clients include companies in the automotive, infrastructure, transport and health care sectors.

32 2 282 35 67

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.