The primary purpose of this thesis is to examine – predominantly through the body of Union case law – the legal principles underpinning the attribution of liability to a parent company for its subsidiary’s participation in a cartel infringement. Despite the significant impact the concept of parental liability has in practice and the remarkable consequences posed by it for corporate groups, there continues to be considerable uncertainty about its scope and application. Due to vague formulations of the principles, alongside obscure and inconsistent practices from both the Commission and the EU Courts, the universal acceptance of parental liability remains questionable. Moreover, doubts arise also as to the efficiency of the current anti-cartel enforcement policy in view of the fact that the number and gravity of cartel infringements seem not to have reduced despite the setting up of a strong deterrence mechanism. In addition, there is a ubiquitous risk that the principles used to impute liability are expanding themselves to the limit of their logic, which in turn leads to contradictory conclusions that are in conflict with fundamental human rights.
In light of the above, this thesis aims to provide a critical narrative of the approaches undertaken by the Commission and the EU Courts when applying and interpreting the principles of parental liability, with a particular focus on case law following the issuing of the landmark Akzo judgement. The respective judgement brought about a long awaited clarity on the question of the presumption of decisive influence, while at the same time raising a plethora of new questions. This thesis clears up the remaining gaps and suggests, where appropriate, normative proposals that demonstrate how a substantive analysis of the concept of parental liability and its application can be improved in a way that ensures legal certainty and is in line with fundamental rights.
|
