Iiyama Benelux BV & Ors v Schott AG & Ors

Iiyama Benelux BV & Ors v Schott AG & Ors

The claimants' case fails because, on the pleaded and clarified facts, there is no arguable case that the alleged cartel conduct was implemented in the EEA or had immediate, substantial, and foreseeable effects in the EEA as required by EU law. The Commission decisions only found liability for direct sales into the EEA by cartelists, not for indirect sales via non-cartelists. The claim is not a proper follow-on claim and cannot succeed as a standalone claim. There was also material non-disclosure in the service out applications, justifying setting aside service.

Parties
Claimant: IIYAMA BENELUX BV; Claimant: IIYAMA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; Claimant: IIYAMA (UK) LIMITED; Claimant: IIYAMA POLSKA SP. Z O O; Claimant: IIYAMA FRANCE S. A. R. L; Claimant: MOUSE COMPUTERS CO LTD; Defendant: SCHOTT AG; Defendant: SCHOTT GLASWERKE BETEILIGUNGS UND EXPORT GMBH; Defendant: SCHOTT UK LIMITED; Defendant: NIPPON ELECTRIC GLASS CO LTD; Defendant: SAMSUNG CORNING PRECISION MATERIALS CO LTD; Defendant: SAMSUNG SDI CO LTD; Defendant: SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) BERHAD; Defendant: LG ELECTRONICS INC; Defendant: LG ELECTRONICS UK LIMITED; Defendant: LG ELECTRONICS WALES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION); Defendant: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV; Defendant: PHILIPS ELECTRONICS UK LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Competition Law Damages Claim / Summary Judgment/strike Out and Applications to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claim struck out/summary judgment for defendants; service out of jurisdiction set aside for non-disclosure.
Legal Topics
Article 101 TFEU, Follow on Damages Claims, Jurisdiction, Implementation Test, Qualified Effects Doctrine, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications
Competition Law Private International Law Article 101 TFEU Follow on Damages Claims Jurisdiction Implementation Test Qualified Effects Doctrine Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IIYAMA BENELUX BV

Claimant

IIYAMA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH

Claimant

IIYAMA (UK) LIMITED

Claimant

IIYAMA POLSKA SP. Z O O

Claimant

IIYAMA FRANCE S. A. R. L

Claimant

MOUSE COMPUTERS CO LTD

Claimant

SCHOTT AG

Defendant

SCHOTT GLASWERKE BETEILIGUNGS UND EXPORT GMBH

Defendant

SCHOTT UK LIMITED

Defendant

NIPPON ELECTRIC GLASS CO LTD

Defendant

SAMSUNG CORNING PRECISION MATERIALS CO LTD

Defendant

SAMSUNG SDI CO LTD

Defendant

SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Defendant

LG ELECTRONICS INC

Defendant

LG ELECTRONICS UK LIMITED

Defendant

LG ELECTRONICS WALES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Defendant

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV

Defendant

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS UK LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Competition Law Damages Claim / Summary Judgment/strike Out and Applications to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have an arguable case under Article 101 TFEU for damages arising from alleged cartel conduct where the cartelised products were sold outside the EEA and only entered the EEA through non-cartelist intermediaries
  2. 2 Whether the claim is a pure follow-on claim or contains standalone elements
  3. 3 Whether the implementation or qualified effects test under EU law is satisfied by the facts pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' case fails because, on the pleaded and clarified facts, there is no arguable case that the alleged cartel conduct was implemented in the EEA or had immediate, substantial, and foreseeable effects in the EEA as required by EU law. The Commission decisions only found liability for direct sales into the EEA by cartelists, not for indirect sales via non-cartelists. The claim is not a proper follow-on claim and cannot succeed as a standalone claim. There was also material non-disclosure in the service out applications, justifying setting aside service.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out/summary judgment for defendants; service out of jurisdiction set aside for non-disclosure.

Orders

  • Claim against all defendants struck out and/or summary judgment entered for defendants.
  • Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction set aside for material non-disclosure.