ARTICLE
12 November 2020

Cartels — Presumption Of Decisive Influence By The Parent Company On Its Subsidiaries And Solidarity For The Payment Of The Penalty: CJEU Judgment Of Oct. 28, 2020, Pirelli V. Commission

KL
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP

Contributor

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is a world-leading global law firm, where our ambition is to help you achieve your goals. Exceptional client service and the pursuit of excellence are at our core. We invest in and care about our client relationships, which is why so many are longstanding. We enjoy breaking new ground, as we have for over 170 years. As a fully integrated transatlantic and transpacific firm, we are where you need us to be. Our footprint is extensive and committed across the world’s largest markets, key financial centres and major growth hubs. At our best tackling complexity and navigating change, we work alongside you on demanding litigation, exacting regulatory work and complex public and private market transactions. We are recognised as leading in these areas. We are immersed in the sectors and challenges that impact you. We are recognised as standing apart in energy, infrastructure and resources. And we’re focused on areas of growth that affect every business across the world.
On Oct. 28, 2020, the European Court of Justice ruled on one of the aspects of the proceedings relating to the power cable cartel, for which the main European, Japanese and South Korean
United States Antitrust/Competition Law

On Oct. 28, 2020, the European Court of Justice ruled on one of the aspects of the proceedings relating to the power cable cartel, for which the main European, Japanese and South Korean manufacturers were fined a total of €302 million in 2014.

The court refused to rebut the presumption that a parent company exercises decisive influence over its subsidiaries and rejected in particular the following arguments: 

  • That the subsidiary had a structure that allowed it to operate autonomously in the market
  • That the parent company was a financial holding company, controlling several different companies and operating in several business sectors, excluding the possibility of exercising decisive influence over all its subsidiaries
  • That monthly reporting by the subsidiaries to the parent company was only for informative and accounting purposes

Moreover, the Court of Justice ruled that there is no "priority" between the parent company and its subsidiaries with respect to the payment of the fine for which they are jointly liable. Therefore, the EU Commission is not allowed to grant to any co-debtor the right to challenge priority of payments.

The Court decision is available here:  C‑611/18 (Pirelli & C. SpA v. Commission).

Our Competition and Distribution team is at your disposal for any further information on this subject.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More