CJEU rules that legal advice cannot protect companies from antitrust fines

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

CJEU rules that legal advice cannot protect companies from antitrust fines

IP owners who have sought assurances from law firms that their conduct does not breach antitrust rules can still be hit by fines if the European Commission decides they have infringed the law

The Court of Justice of the European Union has today ruled in a case referred by Austria’s Supreme Court, which asked it two questions.

The first was whether a company which has infringed EU competition law may escape a fine where the infringement has resulted from that undertaking erring as to the lawfulness of its conduct on account of the terms of legal advice given by a lawyer or of the terms of a decision of a national competition authority. The second was whether, where a company participates in a leniency programme, the national competition authorities may decide not to impose a fine even if they find an infringement.

The case centred on freight forwarding company Schenker, which had joined an industry group called the Austrian Freight Forwarding Agents Consolidated Consignment Conference (SSK). In 1996 the Austrian Cartel Court decided that the SSK was a “minor cartel” under Austrian law.

An Austrian law firm specialising in competition law, which was consulted as an adviser, agreed that the SSK constituted a minor cartel and was therefore not prohibited.

European Commission antitrust officials later raided a number of international freight forwarding services and said they had reason to believe they had breached competition law. This led to a dispute as to whether Schenker could be fined or was exempt because of the advice it had received and the decisions of the national authorities.

Today the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice said that the fact that a company has characterised its conduct wrongly in law cannot exempt it from a fine, except in limited cases where officials are required to uphold the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

But the judges said that legal advice given by a lawyer cannot form the basis of a legitimate expectation on the part of a company that its conduct does not infringe EU competition law or will not give rise to the imposition of a fine.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Find out which firms secured the most nominations for Managing IP’s Asia-Pacific Awards 2025, ahead of the winners being revealed on November 6
Raluca Vasilescu joins our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss patent mining and watercolour painting
Jan Phillip Rektorschek, founding partner at Pentarc in Germany, explains why the firm broke away from Taylor Wessing and discusses its plans for staying competitive
Royal Mail Group wins copyright and database right infringement case, in a dispute that can be linked to the history of postcodes in the UK
Managing partner Mark O’Donnell explains why people are at the centre of the Australian outfit’s investment focus and how being independent benefits the firm
IP is becoming one of the most significant drivers of major deals, and law firms are altering their practices to reflect the change
In the second in a new podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IPause, a network set up to support those experiencing (peri)menopause
Firms are adapting litigation strategy as Brazil’s unique legal system and technical expertise have made preliminary injunctions a key tool in global patent disputes
A ruling on confidentiality by the the England and Wales Court of Appeal and an intervention from the US government in the InterDigital v Disney litigation were also among top talking points
Moore & Van Allen hires former Teva counsel Larry Rickles to help expand the firm’s life sciences capabilities
Gift this article