The following Competition practice note Produced in partnership with Dentons provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
The European Commission jurisdiction to prosecute antitrust infringements committed outside of the EEA by non-EEA-based undertakings has been the subject of much debate, particularly in light of the Commission’s cartel infringement proceedings in the LCDs and CRTs cases. The issue of extraterritorial reach has also been raised in the context of unilateral conduct, as exemplified in Intel v Commission (see below). Although the EU treaties do not provide specific guidance on the extraterritorial reach of EU competition rules, the Court of Justice has over time devised a number of tests to determine whether, in a given case, the Commission has appropriate jurisdiction.
The Court of Justice has developed three doctrines:
the single economic entity doctrine that enables the Commission to assert jurisdiction over the parent company of a subsidiary located and engaged in illegal activity within the EEA
the implementation doctrine that focuses on the extent to which the anti-competitive conduct has been implemented in the EEA, and
the qualified effects doctrine, whereby the Commission needs to show that the conduct had substantial, immediate, and foreseeable effects in the EEA.
In Dyestuffs, the Court of Justice established that anti-competitive conduct of a subsidiary located in the EU may be attributed to the parent company situated outside the EU, if the latter has the ability to exercise decisive influence over the former, through the
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
You may apply simplified customer due diligence (SDD) measures in relation to particular business relationships or transactions which you determine present a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, having taken into account:•your organisation-wide risk assessment—see Practice Note:
The roles of nominated officer and money laundering reporting officerA nominated officer is an individual who is nominated by a firm to receive disclosures under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) or Part III of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000)—see Requirement to appoint a
This Practice Note looks at CE-File electronic working in the courts under CPR PD 51O, in the context of case management. It provides guidance on how to file a document electronically, deal with rejected electronic filings, issue a claim electronically, file electronic bundles (eBundles) for case
Brexit: The UK's departure from the EU on exit day ie Friday 31 January 2020 has implications for practitioners dealing with provisions in the CPR relevant to cross border matters, including CPR 5.4C (discussed below). For guidance on the impact of Brexit on the CPR, see Cross border
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.