February 16, 2012
Case C-17/10 Toshiba Corporation et al v. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže  ECR NYP
On February 14, 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") delivered a landmark Judgment that clarifies the parallel application of EU and national competition law to infringements taking place before and after the accession of a Member State to the EU.
The EU competition rules cannot be applied retroactively to anticompetitive behaviour in a Member State that had not as yet acceded to the EU during the period in which the infringing conduct occurred. In these situations, national competition rules may sanction an infringement covering the period before that Member State’s accession to the EU, up until the date of accession.
According to the CJEU, this system of parallel reviews does not breach the ne bis in idem ("double jeopardy") principle.
EU competition rules contain a number of procedural rules concerning the parallel application of national and EU competition rules:
1. Article 101 of the TFEU (the prohibition on restrictive agreements and arrangements) is directly applicable and enforceable by the Commission, National Courts, and National Competition Authorities.
2. The Commission and National Competition Authorities are obliged to apply EU competition law in close cooperation at both national and EU levels.
3. Where an investigation based on the same factual grounds has been initiated by more than one authority, the Commission and National Competition Authorities may allocate it to a single authority in order to respect the principles of legal certainty, subsidiarity and effectiveness of EU law.
Facts and Reference for a preliminary ruling
In January 2007, the Commission adopted a decision in respect of a cartel that had engaged in a single and continuous infringement from 1988 to May 11, 2004 in the gas insulated switchgear market (the "Commission Decision"). In August 2007, the Czech Competition Authority adopted, in a separate proceeding, a decision on the basis of Czech law relating to the infringement by the same cartel for the period up to March 3, 2004.
After a series of appeals before national courts and a return of the case from the Czech Supreme Administrative Court, the Krajský soud v Brně (the "Czech Court") referred a series of questions to the CJEU regarding the application of EU competition rules, namely: the retroactive application of Article 101 of the TFEU, the procedural regime and delimitation of competences at EU and national level, and the ne bis in idem principle.
Non-retroactive application of Article 101 of the TFEU
First, the CJEU observed that the provisions of the TFEU apply in the new Member States as from the date of their accession. Second, respect for the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactive effect of laws preclude the application of Article 101 of the TFEU in a Member State prior to its accession to the EU.
Delimitation of competences and powers of the Commission and National Competition Authorities
The CJEU found that a "national competition authority does not […] permanently and definitely lose its power to apply national competition law where the Commission opens a proceeding." However, in applying national competition rules, National Competition Authorities must respect the ne bis in idem principle.
Respect for the ‘ne bis in idem’ principle
Ne bis in idem is a principle of EU law which must be complied with in proceedings involving the imposition of fines under competition rules.
The CJEU recalled that the application of this general principle of EU law is subject to three conditions: identity of the facts; unity of the offender; and unity of the legal interest protected. According to the CJEU, the "identity of the facts" condition was missing in the case at issue, as the Commission Decision had assessed and referred to the "consequences of the cartel at issue [in] the ‘Member States of the time’ and the States ‘which were contracting parties to the EEA agreement’." A contrario, this condition would be fulfilled where a case appraised by the Commission had defined the scope of the effects of the infringement as being EEA-wide, including recently acceded Member States, and the fine calculation had not reflected the relevant Member States’ more recent accession to the EU.
The Judgment is of major importance for the purposes of defining the nature and duration of a cartel infringement. In the case at issue, May 2004 marked a clear demarcation point between the previous regime and the scheme currently in force: the cartel infringement had ended only months before that date, with the Czech Republic joining the EU in that same month. However, had the Czech Republic entered the EU some time before 2004, or had the cartel infringement continued for another couple of years, the guidance provided by the CJEU should have been arguably identical, given the following:
 See Case COMP/F/38.899 – Gas Insulated Switchgear, OJ C 5, 10.1.2008, pp. 7-10. Full text available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:005:0007:01:EN:HTML
 See Case C-17/10 Toshiba Corporation et al v. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže  ECR NYP, para. 91.
 See Case C-17/10 Toshiba Corporation et al v. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže  ECR NYP, para. 101.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you work, any of the following, or any member of the firm’s Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group:
Peter Alexiadis (+32 2 554 7200, email@example.com)
Andrés Font Galarza (+32 2 554 7230, firstname.lastname@example.org)
David Wood (+32 2 554 7210, email@example.com)
James Ashe-Taylor (+44 20 7071 4221, firstname.lastname@example.org)
Patrick Doris (+44 20 7071 4276, email@example.com)
Philip Rocher (+44 20 7071 4202, firstname.lastname@example.org)
Charles Falconer (+44 20 7071 4270, email@example.com)
Michael Walther (+49 89 189 33 180, firstname.lastname@example.org)
© 2012 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Attorney Advertising: The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.