THE BOTTOM LINE
- Fragmented Defence Strategy: Companies fined in the same cartel decision cannot automatically team up in court. The EU’s top court has reinforced that each company must pursue its own, separate legal challenge.
- Your Partner’s Victory Isn’t Yours: A successful appeal by one cartel member—for example, reducing the duration of their involvement—does not automatically benefit the other participants. Each company’s liability and fines are assessed independently.
- High Bar for Intervention: This ruling confirms the strict test for intervening in a co-defendant’s case. A company must prove a “direct and existing interest” in the specific outcome, which is a much higher standard than simply having a similar legal position.
THE DETAILS
This procedural order from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) offers a crucial lesson in litigation strategy for any company facing a joint competition law infringement. The case involves the Czech and Austrian national railway operators, České dráhy (ČD) and ÖBB, who were collectively fined nearly €50 million by the European Commission for a “gentleman’s agreement” to restrict a competitor’s access to railway wagons. Both companies launched separate appeals against the decision at the EU’s General Court. ÖBB’s appeal focused on a specific point: shortening the duration of its involvement in the cartel to reduce its fine. ČD, seeing a common cause, sought to intervene and support ÖBB’s arguments, hoping a victory for ÖBB would benefit its own case.
The CJEU, however, firmly rejected this approach, upholding a lower court decision to block the intervention. The Court’s reasoning hinges on the strict interpretation of what constitutes an “interest in the result of a case.” To intervene, a company must show that the outcome of the other party’s lawsuit will directly alter its own legal standing. The Court found that ČD’s interest was merely indirect. Even if ÖBB won its argument, the judgment would only formally apply to ÖBB, changing its specific liability and fine. A Commission decision fining multiple parties is treated as a “bundle of individual decisions,” meaning a change to one does not automatically affect the others.
This decision also addresses the fundamental right to be heard. The Court clarified that ČD is not being deprived of its right to a fair hearing simply because it cannot join ÖBB’s case. ČD has its own separate legal action pending, where it is free to make the exact same arguments about the cartel’s duration and present all relevant evidence. The ruling underscores a key principle of EU cartel litigation: while companies may have acted together in the market, they must stand apart in court. Each must fight its own battle on its own merits, and they cannot rely on a co-conspirator’s legal successes to clear their own name or reduce their own penalty.
SOURCE
Source: Court of Justice of the European Union
