CJEU rules that legal advice cannot protect companies from antitrust fines
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

CJEU rules that legal advice cannot protect companies from antitrust fines

IP owners who have sought assurances from law firms that their conduct does not breach antitrust rules can still be hit by fines if the European Commission decides they have infringed the law

The Court of Justice of the European Union has today ruledin a case referred by Austria’s Supreme Court, which asked it two questions.

The first was whether a company which has infringed EU competition law may escape a fine where the infringement has resulted from that undertaking erring as to the lawfulness of its conduct on account of the terms of legal advice given by a lawyer or of the terms of a decision of a national competition authority. The second was whether, where a company participates in a leniency programme, the national competition authorities may decide not to impose a fine even if they find an infringement.

The case centred on freight forwarding company Schenker, which had joined an industry group called the Austrian Freight Forwarding Agents Consolidated Consignment Conference (SSK). In 1996 the Austrian Cartel Court decided that the SSK was a “minor cartel” under Austrian law.

An Austrian law firm specialising in competition law, which was consulted as an adviser, agreed that the SSK constituted a minor cartel and was therefore not prohibited.

European Commission antitrust officials later raided a number of international freight forwarding services and said they had reason to believe they had breached competition law. This led to a dispute as to whether Schenker could be fined or was exempt because of the advice it had received and the decisions of the national authorities.

Today the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice said that the fact that a company has characterised its conduct wrongly in law cannot exempt it from a fine, except in limited cases where officials are required to uphold the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

But the judges said that legal advice given by a lawyer cannot form the basis of a legitimate expectation on the part of a company that its conduct does not infringe EU competition law or will not give rise to the imposition of a fine.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A 36-member team from Zhong Lun Law Firm, including six partners, will join the newly formed East IP Group
The Delhi High Court sided with Ericsson against Indian smartphone maker Lava, bringing the companies' nine-year dispute to a close
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Gift this article