The CJEU, Europe’s highest court, rejected a complaint from Pilkington about the sales figures and exchange rate used to calculate the fine.
The European Commission imposed the fine on Pilkington in 2008, when it found the company guilty of price fixing in the market for car glass between 1998 and 2002.
The fine calculation included contracts that were negotiated before the cartel was in place, Pilkington said. The glassmaker also said that the exchange rate used to convert its sterling-based sales figures into euros had cost it an extra €40 million.
CJEU advocate general Juliane Kolkott said that the whole turnover achieved should be used to calculate a fine when the object of a cartel is to distort competition. To use only some sales figures would “artificially reduce the economic effect of the cartel” and would also involve a disproportionate effort by the court, she said.
On the exchange rate, Pilkington argued that the Commission should have used the European Central Bank exchange rate on the day it made the decision rather than an average for the previous year. Kolkott said that this would have been “comparing apples and pears”, applying a new exchange rate to old figures. The average rate “reflects the economic realities” over the course of the year, she said.
A further appeal concerning the automotive glass cartel is currently pending before the CJEU. However, it does not challenge the same judgment of the General Court and raises entirely different legal issues, the CJEU said.
Full Content: Out-Law
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh