– Absence of actual or potential substitute – Judicial Competition Training

2 August, 2021

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021. Case C-152/19 P.Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission. ECLI:EU:C:2021:238. Decisive influence and absence of decisional autonomy as alternatives to impute parent liability. Facts demonstrating that the parent company was in a position to exercise decisive influence over subsidiary can be taken into account, in the light of or in conjunction with other facts relating to that situation, as indications contributing to a finding of an actual exercise of such influence. These facts can conform a part of a body of consistent evidence relating to actual and decisive influence of the parent company over its subsidiary. Decisive influence and absence of decisional autonomy as alternatives to impute parent liability. Rights of defence. (JIRP)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021. Case C-152/19 P.Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission. ECLI:EU:C:2021:238. Multilingual versions at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62019CJ0152 Context: Deutsche Telekom […]

2 August, 2021

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021. Case C-152/19 P.Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission. ECLI:EU:C:2021:238. Decisive influence and absence of decisional autonomy as alternatives to impute parent liability. Facts demonstrating that the parent company was in a position to exercise decisive influence over subsidiary can be taken into account, in the light of or in conjunction with other facts relating to that situation, as indications contributing to a finding of an actual exercise of such influence. These facts can conform a part of a body of consistent evidence relating to actual and decisive influence of the parent company over its subsidiary. Decisive influence and absence of decisional autonomy as alternatives to impute parent liability. Rights of defence. (JIRP)