Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 8 results.

The Theory of Economic Unit and the ‘Downward’ Liability of Subsidiaries for the Sins of Their Parent Companies: Better Not! (C-882/19 Sumal) journal article

Catarina Vieira Peres de Fraipont, Inês Neves

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 1, Page 98 - 103

Case C‑882/19 Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L., Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 By judgment of 6 October 2021, in the Sumal case, the Court of Justice ruled that the victim of an anticompetitive infringement may bring an action for damages, either against a parent company who has been addressed by an infringement decision of the European Commission, or against a subsidiary which is not referred to in that decision. In order to do so, those two entities have to be part of the same economic unit and there has to be a specific link between the economic activity of that subsidiary and the subject matter of the infringement for which the parent company was held to be responsible.



Has the CJEU’s Slovak Telekom Ruling Declared the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem Virtually Redundant in Cases of Parallel Public Enforcement of EU Competition Law? (C-857/19 Slovak Telekom) journal article

Francesco Rizzuto, Monika Lynch

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 2, Page 162 - 171

Case C-857/19 Slovak Telekom a.s. v Protimonopoly Urad Slovenskej Republiky, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 February 2021 In this ruling the Court of Justice of the European has established two key rules that taken together with previous rulings of the Court amount to rendering virtually redundant the principle of ne bis in idem as a defense in the parallel enforcement of competition law in the European Union under Regulation 1/2003. First, it has clarified that the same abusive conduct may constitute a series of separate offences where the abuse concerns distinct products and prosecuting and sanctioning them separately would not be incompatible with the principle of ne bis in idem. Secondly, it ruled that where the Commission relieves a national competition authority of a case, only the Commission decision prevails regardless of the stage or status of proceedings conducted by the national competition authority. The implications for the liability of undertakings may be far-reaching.


Goldman Sachs v Commission: The Liability of Financial Investors for the Sins of Their Portfolio Companies (C-595/18 P Goldman Sachs) journal article

Andre Fiebig

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 2, Page 156 - 161

Case C-595/18 P The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v European Commission, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 The jurisprudence of the EU Courts in reconciling corporate law doctrines on parent company liability with EU competition law doctrines has developed mostly in the context of strategic investors. The increase in financial investors in the last decade has forced the EU Courts to adapt the earlier jurisprudence to situations where the parent company is primarily interested in the financial performance of the subsidiaries rather than the daily operations. Goldman Sachs v Commission represents another step in the attempt to develop clear rules for when the anti-competitive conduct of portfolio companies can be imputed to their financial investors. Unfortunately, the case failed to provide such needed guidance.




Expressions on Platforms: journal article

Freedom of Expression and ISP Liability in the European Digital Single Market

Giovanni De Gregorio

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 2 (2018), Issue 3, Page 203 - 215

Freedom of expression online and Internet Service Providers are closely connected. Consequently, when dealing with the regulation of their liability, it is necessary that public actors take deeply into consideration how the ISP’s liability regime affect fundamental rights. Recently, in the framework of the European Digital Single Market Strategy, the EU Commission have issued two proposals which would impact on the ISP’s system of liability in Europe and, as a result, on freedom of expression. Hence, it is necessary to analyse the potential drawbacks, providing, from a comparative perspective, alternative solutions which comply with the EU constitutional framework. Keywords: Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, ISP Liability, Copyright, AVMS Directive, Freedom of Expression


T-419/14 Goldman Sachs: Expanding the Application of Parental Liability in EU Competition Law to Investment Firms journal article

Dimitris Vallindas, Ciara Barbu-O’Connor

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 2 (2018), Issue 4, Page 303 - 307

Case T-419/14 The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc v European Commission, Judgment by the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018 On parental liability of financial investors in a company found liable of participating in a cartel in breach of EU competition rules and the application of the presumption and the demonstration of actual exercise of decisive influence. Article 101 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; OJ 2008 L115/47 and Articles 2 and 23 of Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102] of the Treaty; OJ 2003 L1.

  • «
  • 1
  • »