Page 140 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

influence establish by the effect of the Akzo case. The subsidiary would consequently
be held liable in most, if not all, cases since the presumption is irrebuttable in practice

due to the vague and ambiguous interpretation of the notion of the decisive influence
of the CJEU.

It follows from the foregoing considerations that the potential answers of the
ECJ will have an influential repercussion to the single economic entity doctrine. As a

result, the judgment of the ECJ will be highly anticipated not only by scholars but also
by legal practitioners working in the competition law field. Besides, the flaws of the

application of the single economic doctrine in order to attribute liability intra-group can
be observed by the questions and contradiction which will be derived from the possible
statements of the ECJ. As a result, the current preliminary reference can be served as

another reminder of the need to reconsider the methodology of the single economic
entity doctrine.

V. Conclusion

The economic approach of the concept of the undertaking as a perpetrator of

the EU Competition law precludes corporate groups from relying on the principle of
personal liability to avoid the antitrust liability since separated legal personalities are

irrelevant when it comes to the determination of the persons responsible for the penalties,
be it fines or damages. In term of the attribution of the liability in a corporate group,
it is apparent from the jurisprudence of the CJEU that in most cases, the single economic

entity doctrine has been invoked in order to attribute liability of a subsidiary to its parent
company. Several reasonings have been considered as justifications of the current

methodology, which by its nature is arguably contradicted with the fundamental principle
of personal liability. It should be borne in mind that national jurisdictions also recognise
the attribution of liability of one legal person to another under certain specific criteria,

known as a so-called corporate veil piercing doctrine.
Regardless of the justifiable objectives, the methodology of the application of

the single economic doctrine regarding the attribution of liability has created further

138