European Union: The General Court Judgments In Cathode Ray Tubes: A Reminder Of Key Principles Concerning Cartel Enforcement

In addition to annulling the fine of EUR28 million imposed individually on Toshiba and reducing the fine imposed on Panasonic, the appeals against the European Commission's decision in respect of the cathode ray tubes cartel presented the General Court with an opportunity to restate a number of key principles concerning cartels and cartel enforcement.

The CRT Judgments

The General Court handed down judgments in respect of five appeals1 against the Commission's CRT decision,2 which had found that the main manufacturers of CRTs had infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating in two distinct cartel infringements relating to (i) the colour display tubes market, from October 1996 to March 2006; and (ii) the colour picture tubes (CPT) market, from December 1997 to November 2006.

Appeals by LG Electronics, Philips and Samsung SDI were dismissed in their entirety. The General Court however annulled a fine of EUR28 million imposed individually on Toshiba and reduced the fine imposed on Panasonic.

Judgment in Panasonic and MT Picture Display

Panasonic (at the time of the cartel, MEI) and MT Picture Display (formerly MTPD) are part of a group of companies that produce and market electrical and electronic goods. Until 2000, MEC, one of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of MEI, manufactured and marketed CRTs. MEC then merged with MEI and MEI directly exercised control of the CRT activities. In March 2003, MEI transferred all its CRT activities to MTPD, a joint venture created with Toshiba. Until March 2007, MTPD was owned as to 64.5% by MEI and as to 35.5% by Toshiba. At that time, Toshiba transferred its CRT activities to MEI and MTPD became a wholly-owned subsidiary of MEI.

The following fines were imposed by the Commission:

  • Panasonic individually: EUR157 478 000;
  • Panasonic, Toshiba and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR86 738 000;
  • Panasonic and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR7 885 000.

On appeal, Panasonic and MT Picture Display claimed that the General Court should (i) annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that MEI or MTPD infringed Article 101 TFEU; and (ii) annul or reduce the fines imposed on Panasonic or, alternatively, on MTPD.

Although the General Court was not persuaded to annul the contested decision, it partially upheld the appeal as regards the fines.

Methodology for Determining the Value of Sales

Panasonic and MT Picture Display claimed that the methodology used for calculating the value of sales was incorrect. In identifying the relevant value of sales, the Commission took into account sales of CRT products (comprising both direct sales and direct sales through transformed products3 ), which were delivered within the EEA. These figures were to be provided to the Commission in response to a request for information (RFI). The methodology to determine the value of the direct EEA sales through transformed products proposed by the Commission in its RFI was as follows: determine the average of the value of direct EEA sales made during the same period and multiply this average by the number of CRTs concerned. In their response to the RFI, the applicants suggested an alternative and more accurate method to take into account the varying sizes (and hence value) of the CPTs. 4 The applicants provided a methodology allowing for a more accurate calculation of the value of sales, based on a weighted average taking into account both the time period and the size of the CPTs incorporated into televisions sold during the infringement period.

Point 15 of the Fining Guidelines states that when determining the value of sales the Commission will rely on the best available figures. The General Court held that in this case the Commission departed from those Guidelines—without providing any justification—as the data relied upon by the applicants reflected more accurately the value of direct EEA sales through transformed products. In reaching this conclusion, the General Court held that it is permissible for the Commission to apply different methodologies to different companies that have been found to have participated in a cartel.

Exercising of its unlimited jurisdiction in respect of fines, the General Court reduced the fines imposed as follows:

  • Panasonic individually: EUR128 866 000;
  • Panasonic, Toshiba and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR82 826 000;
  •  Panasonic and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR7 530 000.

Extremely Limited Role in the Cartel

Panasonic and MT Picture Display further contended that a reduction in fine was warranted as their role in the cartel was extremely limited and this was a "mitigating circumstance."

Under the former Fining Guidelines, an "exclusively passive or 'follow my leader' role" could constitute an attenuating circumstance. The General Court noted that this no longer constitutes a mitigating circumstance in the current Fining Guidelines and that, in any event, the applicants' participation could not be qualified as "passive" given that they "participated in a not inconsiderable number of cartel meetings, whose anticompetitive nature has been established, and admitted having provided their competitors with certain information."5 The General Court also referred to the current Fining Guidelines, which provide that the Commission may reduce a fine where a firm demonstrates that "its involvement in the infringement is substantially limited and thus demonstrates that [...] it actually avoided applying it by adopting a competitive conduct in the market."6 For the Commission to consider an argument relating to the non-implementation of the cartel, a business would need to bring evidence that "it clearly and substantially opposed the implementation of the cartel, to the point of disrupting its very functioning, and that it did not give the appearance of adhering to the agreement and thereby incite other undertakings to implement the cartel in question."7 According to the General Court, the applicants did not satisfy this requirement.

Judgment in Toshiba

Toshiba was involved in the production and sales of CRTs from 1995 until March 2003. At that time, Toshiba transferred its CRT business to a joint venture, MTPD, in which it held 35.5% until March 2007.

The Commission found that Toshiba participated directly in the CPT cartel by engaging in bilateral contacts between May 2000 and April 2002 and also by participating in multilateral cartel meetings from April 2002 onwards. In addition, Toshiba was found jointly and severally liable with Panasonic for the infringement committed by MTPD from the time when the joint venture was established.

The following fines were imposed by the Commission:

  • Toshiba individually: EUR28 048 000;
  • Panasonic, Toshiba and MTPD, jointly and severally liable: EUR86 738 000.

Participation in a Single and Continuous Infringement

Toshiba sought the partial annulment of the Commission decision alleging, in particular, errors of assessment relating to the characterisation of Toshiba' participation in certain bilateral contacts or multilateral meetings as forming part of a single and continuous infringement.

Toshiba claimed that the Commission had not established that the bilateral contacts between Toshiba and the other cartel members between May 2000 and April 2002 formed part of the single and continuous infringement found by the Commission. In this regard, the General Court recalled that "the fact that there is a single and continuous infringement does not necessarily mean that an undertaking participating in one or more aspects can be held liable  for the infringement as a whole." 8 The Commission is still required to establish that that company was aware of the others' anticompetitive activities or that it could reasonably have foreseen them. A "concurrence of wills" between the parties is required, as: "it is only if the undertaking knew or should have known when it participated in an agreement than in doing so it was joining in the overall cartel that its participation in the agreement concerned can constitute the expression of its accession to the same cartel."9

The General Court examined the evidence relied upon in the decision and found that the Commission had not established to the requisite legal standard that Toshiba was aware or had actually been kept informed of the existence of the overall CPT cartel by its competitors.10

From April 2002, Toshiba began to participate in certain cartel meetings. The General Court examined whether the Commission was entitled to find that the applicant had participated in a single and continuous infringement by virtue of its participation in four cartel meetings. The General Court concluded that, apart from the evidence showing that Toshiba participated in these meetings and their anticompetitive object, the Commission did not specify the evidence upon which it relied in order to find that Toshiba was aware of the unlawful conduct planned or put into effect by the cartel participants and that it intended, by its own conduct, to contribute to the common objectives pursued by those companies.11

The General Court concluded that with regard to both the bilateral contacts held between May 2000 and April 2002 and the multilateral meetings held from April 2002, the evidence relied upon by the Commission did not establish that Toshiba intended to contribute by its own conduct to the common objectives pursued by the cartel participants.12 Accordingly, the General Court held that the Commission had failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that Toshiba participated in a single and continuous infringement during these periods. Consequently, the General Court annulled the fine of EUR28 048 000 imposed individually on Toshiba for its direct participation in the infringement.

The General Court's ruling on Toshiba's appeal serves as an important reminder of both the burden and standard of proof in cartel cases and underlines the importance of adducing evidence to substantiate a finding of a single and continuous infringement.

Minority Shareholding and Parental Liability

Toshiba was held jointly and severally liable with Panasonic for MTPD's participation in the infringement. Toshiba claimed that MEI had sole control over MTPD through its majority 64.5% shareholding and the appointment of the members of its Board of Directors.

The General Court noted that a minority interest may enable a parent company to exercise a decisive influence on its subsidiary's market conduct "if it is allied to rights which are greater than those normally granted to minority shareholders in order to protect their financial interests and which, when considered in the light of a set of consistent legal or economic indicia, are such as to show that a decisive influence is exercised over the subsidiary's market conduct."13

Further, the General Court stressed that the exercise of joint control over a subsidiary, by two parent companies which are independent of each other, does not preclude a finding of the existence of an economic unit comprising one of those parents and the subsidiary. This is the case even if the proportion of the subsidiary's shareholding owned by that parent is smaller than that owned by the other parent.14

The General Court examined the evidence relied upon by the Commission and concluded that Toshiba exercised decisive influence over MTPD as, in particular, both parents had veto rights with respect to matters of strategic importance, both parents' approval was required for MTPD's business plan and Toshiba had the right to appoint certain members of the Board of Directors. The General Court therefore held that the Commission had not erred in finding that the applicant, as MTPD's parent company, had exercised together with Panasonic, decisive influence over MTPD's conduct on the CPT market. On that basis, the Commission was entitled to hold Toshiba jointly and severally liable with Panasonic for MTPD's anticompetitive conduct.

 1 Case T-82/13 Panasonic Corp. and MT Picture Display v. Commission (EU:T:2015:612); Case T-104/13 Toshiba Corp. v. Commission (EU:T:2015:610); Case T-91/13 LG Electronics Inc. v. Commission (EU:T:2015:609); Case T-92/13 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Commission (EU: T:2015:605); Case T-84/13 Samsung SDI, Co. and others v. Commission (EU:T:2015:611).

2 Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes).

3 The applicants did not dispute the Commission's decision to take into account intragroup sales in the calculation of the fines. For more details on this issue, see here.

4 The applicants' action only related to the CPT cartel.

5 Case T-82/13, para. 183.

6 2006 Fining Guidelines, point 29.

7 Case T-82/13, para. 178.

8 Case T-104/13, para. 52.

9 Ibid., para. 53.

10 Ibid., para. 78.

11 Ibid., para. 84.

12 Ibid., para. 78 and 86.

13 Ibid., para. 97.

14 Ibid., para. 99.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions