2019:522 Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission

2019:522 Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission - drive 3410753 1920
Court General Court
Date of ruling 12 July 2019
Case name (short version) Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission
Case Citation T-8/16

ECLI:EU:T:2019:522

Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers — Breach of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of the defence — Jurisdiction of the Commission — Geographic scope of the infringement — Single and continuous infringement — Principle of good administration — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines
Basic context In its judgment in Case T-8/16 Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission, delivered on 12 July 2019, the Tribunal dismissed the application of Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and its subsidiary Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (‘the applicants’) seeking, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015{1} and, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on them by that decision on account of an infringement of the rules of competition in the sector of the production and supply of optical disk drives (‘ODDs’).
Points arising – admissibility  –
Points arising – substance Agreements – Prohibition – Infringements – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Imputation of liability on an undertaking for the entire infringement – Conditions – Infringing practices and conduct forming part of an overall plan – Assessment – Criteria – Common objective pursued by all the participants – Need for complementarity between the practices complained of – Absence

Agreements – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Concept – Criteria – Set of behaviors adopted by different parties pursuing the same anti-competitive economic aim

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision applying the competition rules – Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing a fine

Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Provisional nature – Necessary content – Respect for the rights of the defense

Following an administrative investigation initiated upon denunciation, the Commission concluded that thirteen companies had participated in a cartel on the ODD market. In the contested decision, the Commission found that, at least from 23 June 2004 to 25 November 2008, the participants in that prohibited cartel had coordinated their conduct in relation to the tendering procedures organised by the computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett Packard. According to the Commission, the companies involved had sought, through a network of parallel bilateral contacts, to ensure that the prices of ODD products remained at higher levels than they would have been in the absence of these bilateral contacts. Accordingly, the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 41 304 000 on the applicants for infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

The applicants put forward several pleas in law in support of their action, alleging, inter alia, infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of the defence, as well as errors of fact and law in determining the geographical scope of the infringement and in finding a single and continuous infringement.

As regards the concept of a single and continuous infringement, the Tribunal recalled that it presupposes a set of conduct adopted by different parties pursuing the same anti-competitive economic aim. It thus follows from the very concept of a single and continuous infringement that such an infringement presupposes a ‘series of conduct or infringements’. The applicants could not therefore claim that the Commission had included an additional legal classification in the contested decision by holding, in addition to the single and continuous infringement identified in the statement of objections, that that infringement was composed of several ‘separate infringements’, since it was precisely those different anti-competitive behaviours which constituted that single infringement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the fact that certain characteristics of the cartel had evolved over time, in particular the inclusion of new participants, the reduction in the number of participants or the enlargement of the cartel to include also Hewlett Packard, could not prevent the Commission from classifying that cartel as a single and continuous infringement since the objective of the cartel had remained unchanged.

{1} Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 – Optical disc players).

Intervention  –
Interim measures  –
Order
  1. Dismisses the action;
  2. Orders Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp.to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Fine changed  –
Case duration 3 years 7 months
Judge-rapporteur Ulloa Rubio
Notes on academic writings Idot, Laurence: Cartels (2), Europe 2019 Mois Comm. nº 10 p.33 (FR)

Tags

Über

Picture Kiran Desai

Kiran Desai

Digest Editor

Partner, EU Competition Law Leader, EY Law, Brussels

>> Kiran’s CoRe Blog Case Digests >>

Zusammenhängende Posts

31. Aug 2023
von Parsa Tonkaboni
The ECJ Judgment in CK Telecoms – Setting the Record Straight? - 0122 Blog post

The ECJ Judgment in CK Telecoms – Setting the Record Straight?

Introduction On 13 July 2023, the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) delivered its highly anticipated ruling in CK Telecoms UK Investments v European Commission (‘CK Telecoms’). The Grand Chamber judgment is significant at the most fundamental level. It clarifies some of the core legal concepts and principles at the very heart of EU merger control. The five crucial issues the […]
18. Jan 2023
Features von Daniel Mandrescu
competition law, abuse of dominance, refusal to supply, Lithuanian railways, bronner, essential facility, art. 102 TFEU

Case C-42/21P Lithuanian Railways – another clarification on the Bronner case law and the non-exhaustive character of art. 102 TFEU

The recent case of Lithuanian Railways provides yet another clarification on the scope of application of the Bronner case law. The Judgement of the CJEU reconfirms exceptional character of the Bronner case law and the type of situations it is intended to apply to. By doing so the CJEU potentially helps prevent future disputes of a similar  nature in the […]
15. Nov 2022
Features von Daniel Mandrescu
abuse of dominance, competition law, art. 102 TFEU, railways, regulation, DMA, excessive pricing, unfair pricing, private enforcement, stand alone claims

Case C-721/20 – DB Station & Service – Can secondary legislation limit the private enforcement of art. 102 TFEU?

Last month the CJEU delivered an interesting ruling on the scope of application of art. 102 TFEU when dealing with excessive or unfair prices in the railway sector. A first reading of the final conclusion of the CJEU would give the impression that the scope of application of art. 102 TFEU is being unduly restricted with this case by making […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai
2019:1134 Furukawa Electric v Commission - lines 2147464 1920

2019:1134 Furukawa Electric v Commission

Court Court of Justice Date of ruling 19 December 2019 Case name (short version) Furukawa Electric v Commission Case Citation C- 589/18 P ECLI:EU:C:2019:1134 Key words Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai
2019:1025 LS Cable & System v Commission - lines 2147464 1920

2019:1025 LS Cable & System v Commission

Court Court of Justice Date of ruling 28 November 2019 Case name (short version) LS Cable & System v Commission Case Citation Case C-596/18 P ECLI:EU:C:2019:1025 Key words Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — Burden of proof — […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai
2019:966 Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission - lines 2147464 1920

2019:966 Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

Court Court of Justice Date of ruling 14 November 2019 Case name (short version) Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission Case Citation C-599/18 P ECLI:EU:C:2019:966 Key words Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Proof of the infringement — Presumption […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai
2019:675 HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission - business 962358 1920

2019:675 HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 24 September 2019 Case name (short version) HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission Case Citation T-105/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:675 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Manipulation of the […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai
2019:633 FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v European Commission - windrader 2991696 1920

2019:633 FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 20 September 2019 Case name (short version) FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v European Commission Case Citation T-217/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:633 Key words State aid — Market for electricity generated from renewable sources — Measures setting a minimum purchase price for electricity generated from renewable energy sources or granting a bonus to producers […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai
2019:532 Région Île-de-France v European Commission - bus 690508 1920

2019:532 Région Île-de-France v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Région Île-de-France v European Commission Case Citation T-292/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:532 Key words State aid — Aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France Region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Advantage — Selective nature […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai
2019:519 Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission - drive 3410753 1920

2019:519 Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission Case Citation T-772/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:519 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding […]

Abonnieren Sie unseren Newsletter, um aktuelle Informationen über rechtliche Entwicklungen, bevorstehende Konferenzen, Seminare und Publikationen zu erhalten.

Bleiben Sie auf dem Laufenden: Newsletter Abonnement