Iiyama v Samsung and Others: Court of Appeal considers the territorial limits of EU competition law

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Pages: 166-171
• Citation: (2018) 4(1) JCCL&P 166
• Author: Swallow, R.

166

IIYAMA V SAMSUNG AND OTHERS:

COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS

THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF EU

COMPETITION LAW

RICHARD SWALLOW

Partner, Slaughter and May, London

CAMILLA SANGER

Associate, Slaughter and May, London

OLGA LADROWSKA

Associate, Slaughter and May, London

I INTRODUCTION

On 16 February 2018, the Court of Appeal handed down an important

judgment in the case of iiyama (UK) Ltd and others v Samsung Electronics

Co Ltd and others (‘iiyama’) ([2018] EWCA Civ 220). The proceedings

relate to two competition law damages claims brought by the iiyama

group in relation to cartels in the cathode ray tube (‘CRT’) and liquid

crystal display (‘LCD’) sectors (CRTs and LCDs being component

parts in televisions and computer monitors). Key to both cases was

the indirect nature of the claimants’ purchases from the cartelists;

none of the claimants purchased cartelised products directly from

any of the defendants and most of the stages of the supply chain

through which iiyama had acquired the cartelised products took

place in Asia. The High Court found at a preliminary stage that such

indirect purchases from the cartels fell outside the territorial scope of

EU competition law.

In a much-awaited judgment, the Court of Appeal addressed the

question of whether, given the supply chains in question, iiyama had

a real prospect of success in claiming that Article 101 of the EU Treaty

had been infringed, such that it would be able to recover damages for

losses suffered as a result of purchases of products at prices inflated

by reason of a cartel. In short, the Court of Appeal overturned the

decisions of the High Court, deciding that both cases should go to

trial. The decision will be of particular relevance to other claimants

seeking to recover losses in the English courts arising from the

indirect sale of cartelised products into the EU.

(2018) 4(1) JCCL&P 166

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd