Key Findings of the TAR Lazio Judgment on Novamont and Eni
The Italian administrative court TAR Lazio has upheld the decision of the Italian antitrust authority, confirming that Novamont engaged in an abuse of dominant position and that Eni can be held liable as the parent company.
Novamont: Confirmation of Abuse of Dominant Position
The Court confirmed that the conduct of Novamont constituted a single and complex exclusionary strategy that qualifies as an abuse of dominant position under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
According to the judgment, the infringement itself was not substantially contested during the proceedings. The Court noted that the applicant did not specifically dispute the existence of the unlawful conduct, meaning that Novamont’s commercial strategy and its anticompetitive effects were largely considered established facts in the case.
The Court further characterized the infringement as a continuous violation lasting from 2018 to 2023, reinforcing the authority’s finding that the conduct formed part of a sustained market strategy rather than isolated incidents.
Eni: Liability as Parent Company
The Court also upheld the extension of liability to Eni under the legal principle of parental liability, which allows competition authorities to hold a parent company responsible for antitrust infringements committed by its subsidiary.
The judges found that Eni exercised decisive influence over Novamont, particularly after acquiring 100% ownership of the company on 18 November 2023. Under EU competition law, full ownership creates a presumption that the parent company has the ability to influence the subsidiary’s conduct and prevent unlawful behaviour.
Because Eni failed to demonstrate that Novamont operated independently, the Court concluded that the attribution of liability to the parent company was justified.
Court Outcome
On this basis, the Court confirmed the legitimacy of the antitrust authority’s findings, including both the determination of abuse by Novamont and the extension of responsibility to Eni as its controlling shareholder.
Source
Related
Regional Administrative Court rejects Novamont’s appeal against the AGCM fine