THE BOTTOM LINE
- Individual Liability is Key: Companies fined for participating in the same cartel cannot automatically join each other’s court challenges. EU courts treat antitrust decisions as a “bundle of individual decisions,” meaning each company’s liability is assessed separately.
- No Automatic Knock-On Effect: A victory for one cartel member (e.g., reducing the duration of its involvement) does not automatically reduce the fine or liability of other members. Each company must prove its own case.
- Strategic Implications: This ruling complicates joint defence strategies. Co-defendants must run their own parallel legal actions, potentially leading to different outcomes on similar facts and increasing overall litigation costs.
THE DETAILS
The case originates from a European Commission decision that fined Czech railway operator České dráhy (ČD) and its Austrian counterpart, ÖBB, for an illegal “gentleman’s agreement.” The Commission found they had colluded to restrict a competitor’s access to second-hand railway carriages, a breach of EU competition law. Both companies filed separate lawsuits with the EU’s General Court to challenge the decision. ÖBB argued, among other things, that the infringement started later than the Commission claimed, and sought to have its fine reduced accordingly. ČD, facing a similar accusation, sought permission to formally join ÖBB’s case as an intervener to support this specific argument.
The Court of Justice, upholding a lower court decision, has denied this request. The judgment hinges on the strict legal test for intervention: a party must prove a “direct and existing interest” in the final outcome of the case. The Court ruled that ČD’s interest was merely indirect. It reasoned that even if ÖBB succeeded in convincing the court that its involvement began later, that ruling would only change the legal position of ÖBB. It would not automatically apply to ČD or force a reduction in its separate fine, as each company’s case is treated as a distinct legal matter.
This order reinforces a core principle of EU competition enforcement: even when multiple companies are involved in the same infringement, their liability is personal. The Court drew a clear line, distinguishing this situation—where only the duration of one party’s involvement was being challenged—from a case where the very existence of the cartel was in question. The Court noted that ČD’s rights are fully protected, as it can make all the same arguments about the infringement’s timeline in its own, separate lawsuit. For businesses and their legal teams, the message is clear: when fighting a cartel fine, you are ultimately on your own.
SOURCE
Court of Justice of the European Union
