Page 127 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

ฉบับพิเศษ ประจำ�ปี 2564

therefore her opinion still resembles the ambiguous method to attribute liability within
a corporate group formulated by the ECJ.

Regarding the AG opinion, it can also be inferred from her statement that

the principle of parental liability is to be considered a fault-based liability. In that aspect,
82
the CJEU’s perspective can be observed in the case Villeroy & Boch AG. The ECJ,
83
after reiterated that a parent company could be held liable for its subsidiary liability

when they form one single economic entity and the presumption of the actual exercise
of decisive influence in a case of a wholly own subsidiary , held that such presumption
84
does not lead to a presumption of guilt on the part of parent company or subsidiary,
therefore rendering it compatible with the presumption of innocence.
85
It can be inferred from the judgment that the guilt of a parent company does not
derive from the presumption of decisive influence. Therefore, it is not contradicted with
the presumption of innocence. Regarding the joint and several liability aspects of the

parental liability in EU competition law, a fine is imposed on the undertaking, indicated
by EU law as the responsible entity, not the legal persons. Therefore, the Commission
is not required to determine the amount of fine in each constituent legal entities.

The methodology of parental liability reflected in both case law is at the present date,
a settled case-law. Several case laws in the concerning area mostly, if not all, are delivered

with the same argumentation. 86

Legal consequences of the CJEU methodology

Even though there are attempts of the CJEU to justify the principle of parental
liability in accordance with the principle of personal liability, after thorough scrutiny,
the theoretical argumentation of the CJEU should be considered as an attempt to

82 Ibid, para 39
83 Case C-625/13 P. Villeroy & Boch AG, supra (n.10)
84 Ibid, para 145-148
85 Ibid, para 149
86 C-628/10 and C-14/11 P Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v. Commission
ECLI:EU:C:2012:479; C-155/14 P - Evonik Degussa and AlzChem v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2016:446; Cases
C–93/13 P and C–123/13P Commission and Others v. Versalis and Others ECLI:EU:C:2015:150

125