European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)

Jean-Philippe Christienne

European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
Legal Secretary

Jean-Philippe Christienne (born in 1968) is graduated in Law (Paris-II) and History (Paris-IV). He used to be a French administrative judge (1999-2015) and has got eighteen years’ experience as legal secretary, both in the Court of Justice of the European Union (2007-2008 and since 2020) and in the General Court of the European Union (2003-2007 and 2009-2020). He had been Technical Advisor in the Cabinet of the French Minister of Economy, Mrs Lagarde (2009). He is specialized in Competition Law and Taxation Law.

Linked authors

European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)


5927 Review

Anthony Dawes, Ben Holles De Peyer, David Bosco, Francisco Enrique González-Díaz, Jean-Philippe Christienne, Nicolas Von Lingen, Thierry De Bovis, Thomas Perroud The EU judge and the unlimited jurisdiction over the Commission’s decisions


The EU judicial review of the Commission’s decisions generates an abundant case law. This Trends aims to clarify the major difficulties that arise from the concept of "unlimited jurisdiction" and that manifest themselves both at the level of the control standard to which the Commission’s (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Imputability: The General Court of the European Union annuls part of a Commission’s decision due to the erroneous finding of the liability of two parent companies for their joint venture’s infringement (RWE)


Much has been written in the first two commentaries on the Esso Société anonyme française and Others v Commission and Sasol and Others v Commission judgments, which is dealt with in the RWE and RWE Dea v Commission judgment. The references mentioned in those comments will enable the reader to (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Imputability : The General Court of the European Union annuls a Commission’s decision in so far as it did not establish the actual exercise of decisive influence by two parent companies on the subsidiary directly involved in the infringement (Sasol)


A marvellous illustration of the difficulty, for the jurist, to overcome the fluctuating capital entanglement of companies, the case law on the imputability to the parent company of the infringement committed by its subsidiary or subsidiaries has nevertheless known its moments of clarity: the (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Equal treatment: The General Court of the European Union reduces the amount of the fine imposed on companies involved in a cartel on the ground that the Commission infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality as well as Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Esso)


Base oils, of which slack wax is one of the by-products, are produced from crude oil and are used in the manufacture of paraffin waxes. Paraffin wax is also sold as such to end customers, such as particleboard producers. The markets for slack wax and paraffin waxes have been investigated by the (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Obligation of cooperation: The Court of Justice of the European Union upholds the General Court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Commission not to grant immunity to a member of an agreement due to the disclosure of his cooperation with the Commission to other members (Deltafina)


Deltafina SpA’s main activities are the first processing of raw tobacco and the marketing of processed tobacco. Following an investigation carried out in 2001, the Commission found that there was a cartel between processors of raw tobacco on the Italian market. In 2002, Deltafina applied to the (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Umbrella effects: The Court of Justice of the European Union rules that article 101 TFEU does not allow national law to obstruct categorically the compensation of damages induced by umbrella effects (Kone)


This judgment is the subject of a detailed commentary in the "Proceedings" section of the which it is therefore referred. Suffice it to state here that, following the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, who considered that it would be contrary to the effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Imputability: The Court of Justice of the European Union judges that the General Court did not add grounds to the Commission’s decision whereby a cartel responsibility in which a subsidiary had participated was attributed to its parent company (Alvarez)


Commission Decision C (2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 in the industrial bags cartel was the subject of an action by Armando Álvarez, which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance (Trib. UE 16 November 2011, Álvarez v Commission, T 78/06). That company had lodged an appeal, which has (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Removing from an agreement: The General Court of the European Union judges that the mere existence of a doubt concerning the future participation of the company to an agreement does not allow to conclude to a definitive distancing from the agreement (Toshiba)


The administration of proof in EU competition law is constantly oscillating between a quest for objectivity, based on the concept of the burden of proof (see our commentary on the Reagens decision in this issue of the Review), and a more subjective logic, inherited from the common law (...)

Jean-Philippe Christienne Duality of infringements: The General Court of the European Union judges that the Commission did not misjudge the principle of equal treatment when fixing differently the rates of the variables amounts entering in the calculation of fines punishing two different infringements (Reagens)


The Reagens judgment bears witness in many respects to the sharpness of the view taken by the Court of First Instance of the European Union of the conduct which the Commission considers to constitute cartels, both in terms of the review of legality which it is vested with and of its powers of (...)


Send a message