On January 19, 2016, the General Court of the European Union (Court) upheld the imposition of fines on Toshiba [3] and Mitsubishi Electric [4] for their participation in the cartel on the market for gas insulated switchgear (GIS). According to the press release [5], the Commission determined in 2007 that the two Japanese companies had participated in a cartel with twenty European companies who also produced gas insulated switchgear, a “major component for electric substations to convert electrical current from high to low tension and vice versa,” and ordered them to pay individual fines as well as a sum of €4.65 million joint and severally. In 2011, the Court found that “the Commission had infringed the principle of equal treatment” in its calculations and annulled the fines, even though it confirmed the companies’ participation in the cartel.  The Commission recalculated the fines and the companies once again challenged them, arguing that “the Commission, inter alia, deemed them to be equally as liable for the cartel as the European producers, even though, unlike the latter, they participated in only one aspect of the cartel. The Japanese undertakings committed, vis-à-vis the European undertakings, only not to enter the EEA market, . . . they did not participate in the allocation of market shares in the EEA.” The Court disagreed and ruled “that the failure to act of the Japanese undertakings was a prerequisite for ensuring that the allocation of market shares in the EEA could be carried out among the European producers.” The two companies also argued that the fines should have been calculated based on their individual sales figures rather than those of a joint venture owned by them in equal shares. The Court rejected their argument, noting that the Commission was required to base its calculations on the 2003 sales figures and highlighting that “during that year, Toshiba and Mitsubishi Electric did not record any GIS sales themselves, given that that had transferred their activities in that sector to their joint venture.” Therefore, the Commission had properly calculated the fine based on the joint venture’s sales figures.