Parental Liability for Infringement of the Ban on Cartels

Parental Liability for Infringement of the Ban on Cartels

Journal article

1 electronic resource (page 792–801)

Extract European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6; Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 101; Competition Law, Arts. 6 and 57 – Cold Fish Storage Cartel Headnotes by the Editorial Office 1. Where a parent company owns 100% of the capital of its infringing subsidiary, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent company exercises decisive influence over its subsidiary’s conduct (the Akzo presumption). The application of the Akzo presumption could not be set aside on the basis of the principle of proportionality. Moreover, the application of the Akzo presumption does not depend on the submission of additional evidence of the actual exercise of influence by the parent company. 2. If an infringing legal entity has been transferred to another undertaking during or after the infringement, the maximum fine may change. Because the initial parent and subsidiary companies no longer formed an economic unit when the fine was imposed, they are subject to separate maximum fines. For the parent company at the time, the maximum fine is determined by the turnover of the undertaking it was leading at the time that the fine was imposed. For the subsidiary company at the time, the maximum fine is determined on the basis only of its own turnover and that of any subsidiaries. This may have the effect that, after adjusting the fine for exceeding the maximum, the amount for which the then parent company is liable is significantly higher than the amount for which the infringing subsidiary is liable.

Crossref

GRUR International ; 74, 8, 2025, 2632-8550.

[Oxford, England] : Oxford University Press (OUP), 2025.

English

https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505

External Online Journals > GRUR