Akzo Nobel NV v Commission
Where a parent company holds all or almost all of the capital of a subsidiary which has infringed competition law, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent exercises decisive influence and is jointly liable.
Facts
The European Commission fined several companies for participating in a cartel in choline chloride. It held the parent company of the Akzo Nobel group jointly and severally liable for the infringements committed by its wholly owned subsidiaries, on the basis that it was presumed to exercise decisive influence over them. Akzo Nobel argued that the Commission should have proved that it actually exercised decisive influence over its subsidiaries.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice upheld the Commission's decision. The court said that the conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company where the subsidiary does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market, because the parent and the subsidiary form a single economic unit and therefore a single undertaking. In the specific case where a parent company holds all or almost all of the capital of a subsidiary, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent company does in fact exercise a decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary. It is for the parent company to rebut the presumption by adducing sufficient evidence that the subsidiary acts independently on the market.
Related cases on undertakings, agreements and concerted practices
- A Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v Commission (Woodpulp II) Joined Cases C-89/85 and others, [1993] ECR I-1307
- Anic Partecipazioni SpA v Commission Case C-49/92 P, [1999] ECR I-4125
- Argos Ltd v Office of Fair Trading; JJB Sports plc v Office of Fair Trading [2006] EWCA Civ 1318
- Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV v Bayer AG (Adalat) Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P, [2004] ECR I-23
- Coöperatieve Vereniging Suiker Unie UA v Commission Joined Cases 40 to 48, 50, 54 to 56, 111, 113 and 114/73, [1975] ECR 1663
- Eturas UAB v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba Case C-74/14, EU:C:2016:42
- FENIN v Commission Case C-205/03 P, [2006] ECR I-6295
- Höfner and Elser v Macrotron GmbH Case C-41/90, [1991] ECR I-1979
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
