CASE COMMENTS : PROCEDURE – LIABILITY EXEMPTION – ERROR ATTRIBUTABLE TO A THIRD PARTY – LEGAL ADVICE GIVEN BY A LAWYER – LENIENCY

Liability exemption: The Court of Justice considers that an undertaking can be punished for having participated to an antitrust practice even if that is the consequence of its error resulting from a legal advice given by a lawyer and gives the right to national competition authorities to grant immunity from a fine when applying UE law on an exceptional basis (Schenker & Co.)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. The case raised two important issues for companies seeking to avoid liability by shifting the blame for their involvement in an anti-competitive practice to a third party and for NCAs wishing to implement their leniency programme when applying EU law, in particular Article 101 TFEU. The facts underlying the questions referred for a preliminary ruling The facts are particularly singular and deserve to be recalled. In the present case, in 1994, several members of the Austrian professional association of transporters decided to set up a civil company, SSK, with the aim 'to offer shippers and final consumers more advantageous rates for the transport of

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Alexandre Lacresse, Liability exemption: The Court of Justice considers that an undertaking can be punished for having participated to an antitrust practice even if that is the consequence of its error resulting from a legal advice given by a lawyer and gives the right to national competition authorities to grant immunity from a fine when applying UE law on an exceptional basis (Schenker & Co.), 18 June 2013, Concurrences N° 3-2013, Art. N° 53840, p. 142

Visites 198

All reviews