- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Italy Antitrust Fine May Breach Volkswagen's Rights, Says EU Court Adviser
Italy Antitrust Fine May Breach Volkswagen's Rights, Says EU Court Adviser
An adviser to Europe's top court has recently said that the Italian antitrust fine levied on Volkswagen Group over its defeat devices may have infringed the automaker's right not to be penalized twice for the same offence.
Volkswagen had challenged a 5 million euro ($5.4 million) Italian antitrust fine levied in 2016 for misleading advertising about cars fitted with illegal defeat devices before the EU Court of Justice (CJEU).
Moreover, Volkswagen had exclusively paid 1-billion-euro German fine in 2018, with the scandal costing it more than 32 billion euros in refits, fines and legal costs so far.
In 2019, the Italian Court, rejected the Volkswagen appeal, ruling that there was no double jeopardy involved as the Italian fine was derived from a different legal basis.
Thereafter, Volkswagen moved before the Italian Council of State which then sought advice from the CJEU.
Advocate General Manuel Campos Sanchez-Bordona said in a non-binding opinion it could be a case of double jeopardy, which means that people cannot be charged twice for the same offence and which ensures legal certainty and equality.
He stated, “The two proceedings relate to the same legal person (Volkswagen), and that the facts penalized are identical in substance and time.”
According to him, there appeared to be no coordination between the Italian and German authorities to avoid double jeopardy.
“Volkswagen cannot be penalized in Italy for 'Dieselgate', after having been penalized in Germany, if there has not been sufficient coordination between the penalty proceedings of both States,” Campos Sanchez-Bordona said.
A decision will be made by the CJEU in the months to come, as it usually follows four out of five recommendations.