Articles

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

05.01.2016 NL law

On 26 November 2015, the District Court of Rotterdam ("District Court") reduced the fines imposed by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") on two undertakings which infringed the cartel prohibition through "cover pricing" in several tender procedures for demolition contracts.

Cover pricing, a form of bid-rigging, occurs when one or more invited bidders in a tender procedure have no intention of winning but want to stay in favour with those involved in arranging contracts. Not submitting a (realistic) bid would entail the risk of not being considered for future tenders. In these instances, an undertaking asks a competitor for the value of its bid and subsequently submits a credible but higher bid.

In 2012 and 2013, the ACM rendered several decisions in which it concluded that these exchanges of commercially sensitive information gave rise to a concerted practice having as its object the restriction of competition, thus resulting in a breach of Article 6 of the Dutch Competition Act ("DCA"). According to the ACM, the undertakings created a misleading impression of a competitive bidding process. It imposed fines on a number of undertakings, varying from EUR 2,000 to EUR 69,000.

On appeal, the District Court confirmed that the exchange of commercially sensitive information through cover pricing restricts competition by object under Article 6 DCA. The argument that the concerted practice of cover pricing pursued the legitimate objective of remaining on tender lists was rejected. Furthermore, the parties argued that competition was not distorted because the given "cover price" was clearly non-competitive. The District Court also rejected this argument and stated that the undertakings distorted competition by not submitting prices independently from each other.

The District Court agreed with the ACM that cover pricing constitutes a "very serious" infringement. However, with regard to the applied gravity factor, it decided that the ACM inadequately expressed the difference in severity between "bid rigging" and "cover pricing". Cover pricing is to be regarded as less serious than bid-rigging, which eliminates competition among tender participants. The District Court therefore reduced the "gravity factor" from 1.75 to 1.5 and lowered the fines accordingly.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

20.06.2018 NL law
Op weg naar één Europese spoorwegruimte: de aanpassing van de Nederlandse wetgeving aan het Europese recht

Articles - Het zogenaamde 'Vierde Spoorwegpakket' zal belangrijke gevolgen hebben voor de Europese spoorwegruimte. De Nederlandse regering maakt goede vaart met de aanpassing van het nationale recht aan de eisen die uit het Vierde Spoorwegpakket voortvloeien. Inmiddels is een daartoe strekkend wetsvoorstel aanhangig bij de Tweede Kamer. De vaste commissie voor Infrastructuur en Waterstaat heeft eind vorige maand het verslag van haar bevindingen ten aanzien van het wetsvoorstel uitgebracht.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger

Short Reads - On 31 May 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Ernst & Young (EY) did not illegally implement the acquisition of KPMG Denmark (KPMG DK) before obtaining antitrust clearance.  Following the announcement of the transaction, KPMG DK terminated a cooperation agreement. According to the Court, that act cannot be regarded as a violation of the stand-still obligation since it did not contribute to the change of control of the target undertaking.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case

Short Reads - On 9 May 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam declined to accept jurisdiction over Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken, in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB). In the same judgment, the Amsterdam District Court did accept jurisdiction over the alleged claim brought by MTB against Heineken N.V. (Heineken), for the reason that Heineken is based in Amsterdam. The case against Heineken will therefore continue to the next procedural phase, in which the parties will debate the merits of MTB’s alleged claim against Heineken.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring