In 2009, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a price-fixing cartel on the calcium carbonate and magnesium market between 2004 and 2007. In particular, the Commission found that SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH ("SKW") had participated directly in the cartel. Due to the fact that SKW was a subsidiary of Degussa between April 2004 and August 2004, and of SKW Holding between September 2004 and January 2007, the Commission also held these subsequent parent companies liable for SKW’s participation. After the General Court (“GC”) dismissed most of their grounds of appeal against the decision in 2014, both Degussa and SKW Holding appealed to the Court [see our February 2014 newsletter].
Degussa had explicitly instructed SKW not to participate in any competition law infringement. The GC, rather counter-intuitively, found that the fact that SKW participated in the infringement in contravention of Degussa's instructions was a strong indication of the actual exercise of decisive influence by Degussa over SKW. Degussa objected to this reasoning. The Court of Justice sided with Degussa, stating that although an express instruction can be a strong indication of the actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent over a subsidiary, the fact that a subsidiary does not comply with that explicit instruction cannot be regarded as such an indication. Despite this, the Court held that Degussa had failed to prove that it was SKW's normal practice not to carry out instructions from its parent company. Therefore, the Court concluded that the GC had not erred in law in finding that Degussa had failed to rebut the presumption that it exercised decisive influence over SKW.
SKW Holding argued in its appeal that its right to be heard was infringed because the Hearing Officer refused a request for a closed hearing during the administrative proceedings before the Commission. SKW Holding had wished to put forward arguments concerning the role of Degussa in the period following the sale of SKW to SKW Holding, without Degussa being present during such hearing. The Hearing Officer had refused, arguing that SKW Holding's right of defence did not take priority over that of Degussa.
The Court held that the Hearing Officer should not have refused SKW Holding's request. As Degussa was never accused of having participated in the cartel in respect of the period following the sale of SKW to SKW Holding, it was a third party to the proceedings in respect of that period. Accordingly, Degussa's right of defence would not have been harmed. Notwithstanding this error, the Court held that SKW Holding had failed to show that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had the closed hearing been granted.
This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:
1. General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request
2. General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction
3. District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
4. Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands
5. New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016
6. General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid