Short Reads

Court of Justice confirmed that almost any discussion with competitors on market circumstances can be considered a cartel

Court of Justice confirmed that almost any discussion with competitors on market circumstances can be considered a cartel

Court of Justice confirmed that almost any discussion with competitors on market circumstances can be considered a cartel

01.04.2015

On 19 March 2015, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Dole v Commission (Case C-286/13 P). The Court of Justice dismissed entirely Dole's appeal against a finding of participation in a concerted practice to exchange information in the market for bananas.

The General Court ("GC") had upheld the Commission's finding of infringement by object given that in the context of the market for bananas the information exchanged decreased uncertainty [See our April 2013 newsletter article]. The information exchanged related to, among others, competitors' own quotation prices, price trends and views on weather conditions. The pre-pricing information was found to reduce uncertainty because market trends, indications of developments and in some transactions actual prices could be inferred.

On appeal, Dole submitted that because the nature of the information and how removed it was from the setting of the actual prices, the exchange of information "cannot be regarded as capable of removing uncertainty".

In its judgment, the Court of Justice first recalled established case law on object restrictions. It is established in the jurisprudence that certain practices are so likely to have negative effects that, having regard to the objectives and the economic context, neither the effects on the market nor their direct connection to consumer the prices would have to be proven. The Court of Justice also recalled the rebuttable presumption that undertakings which remain active in the market are presumed to have taken account of the information exchanged (CB v Commission C-67/13 P; T-Mobile Netherlands v Commission C-8/08).

Having regard to the established case law and facts, the Court of Justice found that the GC did not err in law and was "entitled to take the view" that these pre-pricing communications constituted a restriction by object because they "made it possible to reduce uncertainty for each of the participants as to the foreseeable conduct of competitors".

This judgment serves as a stark reminder that, given the economic context, certain pre-pricing information that may make it possible to reduce uncertainty, can be regarded by the authorities as an object restriction.  

Team

Related news

01.10.2020 NL law
EU merger control: Dutch clause to catch future killer acquisitions

Short Reads - Competition Commissioner Vestager presented a sneak peak of her plans for the future of EU merger control on the 30th anniversary of the EU Merger Regulation. The proposed plans include a simplification of the notification procedure and a new approach towards the system of referral to ensure that significant transactions, particularly in the digital and pharmaceutical industries, no longer escape Commission scrutiny.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Cigarettes producers fined for alleged indirect info exchange

Short Reads - Enforcement of competition rules in relation to indirect information exchange seems to be catching on; while the European Commission only flagged the risks in its consumer electronics cases, the ACM has taken up the challenge and imposed fines. Four cigarettes producers were fined a total of EUR 82 million for allegedly indirectly exchanging information on the future retail prices of cigarettes through their wholesalers and other buyers. According to the ACM, the manufacturers knowingly accepted this information and used it to determine their own pricing strategies.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Waiting for the EC: third-party platform bans and RPM still on radar

Short Reads - The results of the European Commission’s evaluation of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) call for more clarity and convergence in the interpretation of certain (online) vertical restrictions. However, the Dutch competition authority (the ACM) and the Dutch courts cannot wait for the European Commission’s revised VBER rules to deal with such sales restrictions.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
Directors' liability due to competition law infringements by the company

Short Reads - The District Court Noord-Nederland recently allowed the trustees in bankruptcy of Northsea shrimp trading company Heiploeg to recover part of a EUR 27 million cartel fine from a former director. Internationally, the question whether companies can recover competition law fines through civil claims against individuals involved in the competition law infringement, is controversial. The court held, however, that the director’s personal involvement in the infringement amounted to ‘serious mismanagement’, triggering personal liability to pay damages.

Read more

01.10.2020 NL law
What to expect when you are expecting: broader investment screening in the Netherlands

Short Reads - On 8 September 2020, a draft bill setting up an ex-ante and ex-post screening mechanism for investments in companies active in vital processes or sensitive technology in the Netherlands was published for consultation. Investments, mergers and acquisitions that took place between 2 June 2020 and the entry into force of the proposed law may also be scrutinised. The draft bill is open for consultation until 7 October 2020. Companies should beware of these new developments in relation to future, and potentially past, M&A deals.

Read more