European Union: The General Court Judgments In Cathode Ray Tubes: A Reminder Of Key Principles Concerning Cartel Enforcement

In addition to annulling the fine of EUR28 million imposed individually on Toshiba and reducing the fine imposed on Panasonic, the appeals against the European Commission's decision in respect of the cathode ray tubes cartel presented the General Court with an opportunity to restate a number of key principles concerning cartels and cartel enforcement.

The CRT Judgments

The General Court handed down judgments in respect of five appeals1 against the Commission's CRT decision,2 which had found that the main manufacturers of CRTs had infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating in two distinct cartel infringements relating to (i) the colour display tubes market, from October 1996 to March 2006; and (ii) the colour picture tubes (CPT) market, from December 1997 to November 2006.

Appeals by LG Electronics, Philips and Samsung SDI were dismissed in their entirety. The General Court however annulled a fine of EUR28 million imposed individually on Toshiba and reduced the fine imposed on Panasonic.

Judgment in Panasonic and MT Picture Display

Panasonic (at the time of the cartel, MEI) and MT Picture Display (formerly MTPD) are part of a group of companies that produce and market electrical and electronic goods. Until 2000, MEC, one of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of MEI, manufactured and marketed CRTs. MEC then merged with MEI and MEI directly exercised control of the CRT activities. In March 2003, MEI transferred all its CRT activities to MTPD, a joint venture created with Toshiba. Until March 2007, MTPD was owned as to 64.5% by MEI and as to 35.5% by Toshiba. At that time, Toshiba transferred its CRT activities to MEI and MTPD became a wholly-owned subsidiary of MEI.

The following fines were imposed by the Commission:

  • Panasonic individually: EUR157 478 000;
  • Panasonic, Toshiba and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR86 738 000;
  • Panasonic and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR7 885 000.

On appeal, Panasonic and MT Picture Display claimed that the General Court should (i) annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that MEI or MTPD infringed Article 101 TFEU; and (ii) annul or reduce the fines imposed on Panasonic or, alternatively, on MTPD.

Although the General Court was not persuaded to annul the contested decision, it partially upheld the appeal as regards the fines.

Methodology for Determining the Value of Sales

Panasonic and MT Picture Display claimed that the methodology used for calculating the value of sales was incorrect. In identifying the relevant value of sales, the Commission took into account sales of CRT products (comprising both direct sales and direct sales through transformed products3 ), which were delivered within the EEA. These figures were to be provided to the Commission in response to a request for information (RFI). The methodology to determine the value of the direct EEA sales through transformed products proposed by the Commission in its RFI was as follows: determine the average of the value of direct EEA sales made during the same period and multiply this average by the number of CRTs concerned. In their response to the RFI, the applicants suggested an alternative and more accurate method to take into account the varying sizes (and hence value) of the CPTs. 4 The applicants provided a methodology allowing for a more accurate calculation of the value of sales, based on a weighted average taking into account both the time period and the size of the CPTs incorporated into televisions sold during the infringement period.

Point 15 of the Fining Guidelines states that when determining the value of sales the Commission will rely on the best available figures. The General Court held that in this case the Commission departed from those Guidelines—without providing any justification—as the data relied upon by the applicants reflected more accurately the value of direct EEA sales through transformed products. In reaching this conclusion, the General Court held that it is permissible for the Commission to apply different methodologies to different companies that have been found to have participated in a cartel.

Exercising of its unlimited jurisdiction in respect of fines, the General Court reduced the fines imposed as follows:

  • Panasonic individually: EUR128 866 000;
  • Panasonic, Toshiba and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR82 826 000;
  •  Panasonic and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR7 530 000.

Extremely Limited Role in the Cartel

Panasonic and MT Picture Display further contended that a reduction in fine was warranted as their role in the cartel was extremely limited and this was a "mitigating circumstance."

Under the former Fining Guidelines, an "exclusively passive or 'follow my leader' role" could constitute an attenuating circumstance. The General Court noted that this no longer constitutes a mitigating circumstance in the current Fining Guidelines and that, in any event, the applicants' participation could not be qualified as "passive" given that they "participated in a not inconsiderable number of cartel meetings, whose anticompetitive nature has been established, and admitted having provided their competitors with certain information."5 The General Court also referred to the current Fining Guidelines, which provide that the Commission may reduce a fine where a firm demonstrates that "its involvement in the infringement is substantially limited and thus demonstrates that [...] it actually avoided applying it by adopting a competitive conduct in the market."6 For the Commission to consider an argument relating to the non-implementation of the cartel, a business would need to bring evidence that "it clearly and substantially opposed the implementation of the cartel, to the point of disrupting its very functioning, and that it did not give the appearance of adhering to the agreement and thereby incite other undertakings to implement the cartel in question."7 According to the General Court, the applicants did not satisfy this requirement.

Judgment in Toshiba

Toshiba was involved in the production and sales of CRTs from 1995 until March 2003. At that time, Toshiba transferred its CRT business to a joint venture, MTPD, in which it held 35.5% until March 2007.

The Commission found that Toshiba participated directly in the CPT cartel by engaging in bilateral contacts between May 2000 and April 2002 and also by participating in multilateral cartel meetings from April 2002 onwards. In addition, Toshiba was found jointly and severally liable with Panasonic for the infringement committed by MTPD from the time when the joint venture was established.

The following fines were imposed by the Commission:

  • Toshiba individually: EUR28 048 000;
  • Panasonic, Toshiba and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR86 738 000.

Participation in a Single and Continuous Infringement

Toshiba sought the partial annulment of the Commission decision alleging, in particular, errors of assessment relating to the characterisation of Toshiba' participation in certain bilateral contacts or multilateral meetings as forming part of a single and continuous infringement.

Toshiba claimed that the Commission had not established that the bilateral contacts between Toshiba and the other cartel members between May 2000 and April 2002 formed part of the single and continuous infringement found by the Commission. In this regard, the General Court recalled that "the fact that there is a single and continuous infringement does not necessarily mean that an undertaking participating in one or more aspects can be held liable  for the infringement as a whole." 8 The Commission is still required to establish that that company was aware of the others' anticompetitive activities or that it could reasonably have foreseen them. A "concurrence of wills" between the parties is required, as: "it is only if the undertaking knew or should have known when it participated in an agreement than in doing so it was joining in the overall cartel that its participation in the agreement concerned can constitute the expression of its accession to the same cartel."9

The General Court examined the evidence relied upon in the decision and found that the Commission had not established to the requisite legal standard that Toshiba was aware or had actually been kept informed of the existence of the overall CPT cartel by its competitors.10

From April 2002, Toshiba began to participate in certain cartel meetings. The General Court examined whether the Commission was entitled to find that the applicant had participated in a single and continuous infringement by virtue of its participation in four cartel meetings. The General Court concluded that, apart from the evidence showing that Toshiba participated in these meetings and their anticompetitive object, the Commission did not specify the evidence upon which it relied in order to find that Toshiba was aware of the unlawful conduct planned or put into effect by the cartel participants and that it intended, by its own conduct, to contribute to the common objectives pursued by those companies.11

The General Court concluded that with regard to both the bilateral contacts held between May 2000 and April 2002 and the multilateral meetings held from April 2002, the evidence relied upon by the Commission did not establish that Toshiba intended to contribute by its own conduct to the common objectives pursued by the cartel participants.12 Accordingly, the General Court held that the Commission had failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that Toshiba participated in a single and continuous infringement during these periods. Consequently, the General Court annulled the fine of EUR28 048 000 imposed individually on Toshiba for its direct participation in the infringement.

The General Court's ruling on Toshiba's appeal serves as an important reminder of both the burden and standard of proof in cartel cases and underlines the importance of adducing evidence to substantiate a finding of a single and continuous infringement.

Minority Shareholding and Parental Liability

Toshiba was held jointly and severally liable with Panasonic for MTPD's participation in the infringement. Toshiba claimed that MEI had sole control over MTPD through its majority 64.5% shareholding and the appointment of the members of its Board of Directors.

The General Court noted that a minority interest may enable a parent company to exercise a decisive influence on its subsidiary's market conduct "if it is allied to rights which are greater than those normally granted to minority shareholders in order to protect their financial interests and which, when considered in the light of a set of consistent legal or economic indicia, are such as to show that a decisive influence is exercised over the subsidiary's market conduct."13

Further, the General Court stressed that the exercise of joint control over a subsidiary, by two parent companies which are independent of each other, does not preclude a finding of the existence of an economic unit comprising one of those parents and the subsidiary. This is the case even if the proportion of the subsidiary's shareholding owned by that parent is smaller than that owned by the other parent.14

The General Court examined the evidence relied upon by the Commission and concluded that Toshiba exercised decisive influence over MTPD as, in particular, both parents had veto rights with respect to matters of strategic importance, both parents' approval was required for MTPD's business plan and Toshiba had the right to appoint certain members of the Board of Directors. The General Court therefore held that the Commission had not erred in finding that the applicant, as MTPD's parent company, had exercised together with Panasonic, decisive influence over MTPD's conduct on the CPT market. On that basis, the Commission was entitled to hold Toshiba jointly and severally liable with Panasonic for MTPD's anticompetitive conduct.

 1 Case T-82/13 Panasonic Corp. and MT Picture Display v. Commission (EU:T:2015:612); Case T-104/13 Toshiba Corp. v. Commission (EU:T:2015:610); Case T-91/13 LG Electronics Inc. v. Commission (EU:T:2015:609); Case T-92/13 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Commission (EU: T:2015:605); Case T-84/13 Samsung SDI, Co. and others v. Commission (EU:T:2015:611).

2 Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes).

3 The applicants did not dispute the Commission's decision to take into account intragroup sales in the calculation of the fines. For more details on this issue, see here.

4 The applicants' action only related to the CPT cartel.

5 Case T-82/13, para. 183.

6 2006 Fining Guidelines, point 29.

7 Case T-82/13, para. 178.

8 Case T-104/13, para. 52.

9 Ibid., para. 53.

10 Ibid., para. 78.

11 Ibid., para. 84.

12 Ibid., para. 78 and 86.

13 Ibid., para. 97.

14 Ibid., para. 99.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.