Short Reads

ACM clarifies that a party cannot object to the fine imposed on another addressee of the decision

ACM clarifies that a party cannot object to the fine imposed on another addressee of the decision

ACM clarifies that a party cannot object to the fine imposed on another addressee of the decision

02.05.2016 EU law

On 18 April 2016, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") released the public versions of (i) its decision and (ii) its decision on administrative appeal in the prefabricated garage manufacturers case. In the decision on administrative appeal, the ACM clarified that a party cannot object to a fine imposed on another addressee of the decision, because it does not qualify as an "interested party" for that part of the decision.

In the decision, the ACM found that two parties active on the Dutch market, Rekers Betonwerk ("Rekers") and Juwel Betonbauteile ("Juwel"), had concluded anticompetitive agreements. According to the ACM, they had shared customers and concluded price-fixing agreements. Rekers had notified the ACM of the cartel and was therefore granted full leniency. It thus received a 100% fine reduction. Juwel received a fine of EUR 306,500.

Juwel subsequently objected to both the fact that is was held liable for the infringement and the fact that Rekers was granted a 100% fine reduction. In its decision on administrative appeal, the ACM rejected all of Juwel's grounds of objection and upheld the original decision. Most interestingly, the ACM decided that Juwel's request for revoking Rekers' 100% fine reduction was inadmissible.

In that respect, the ACM noted that all parties formally receive separate decisions. These decisions are identical with regard to the content, but they differ in legal effect. In this particular case, the decision addressed to Juwel imposed a fine on Juwel, while the decision addressed to Rekers granted Rekers a 100% fine reduction. Parties only qualify as an "interested party" to a decision that is addressed to them. Therefore, Juwel was not an "interested party" with regard to the ACM decision granting Rekers a fine reduction. Additionally, the ACM concluded that Juwel lacked a material interest in the determination of the fine reduction granted to Rekers. Even if Juwel's request had been granted, this would only have resulted in Rekers receiving a lower fine reduction.


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

1. Commission reduced EURIBOR cartel fine imposed on Société Générale by EUR 218 million
2. Commission publishes commitments offered by Paramount Pictures in pay-TV investigation

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