Short Reads

Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

01.08.2019 NL law

The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

This judgment, handed down on 10 July 2019, is the most recent instalment in the Commission's YIRD investigation, which publicly began with a settlement decision fining several financial institutions for a series of bilateral cartels, whereby the traders of the banks aimed to influence the level of two financial benchmarks through mutual discussions. ICAP was fined for facilitating some of these cartels. Specifically, the Commission found that ICAP had disseminated misleading information and attempted to influence the panel of banks that set the Japanese Yen reference interest rates. The General Court quashed the Commission's decision, partly because it had not sufficiently motivated the methodology used to set ICAP's fine. The Commission appealed the General Court's judgment.

The Court of Justice agreed with the General Court, emphasising that when the Commission departs from the fining methodology established in its Guidelines due to the particularities of the case, the methodology must be disclosed to the parties to safeguard their rights of the defence. For ICAP, the particularity was its role as facilitator. The disclosure must allow the parties to make their views known regarding the factors on which the Commission intends to base its fine on.

Scrutiny of the Commission' s compliance with its duty to state reasons has been high this July. The General Court recently found that, in one of the decisions taken in the retail food packaging cartel, the amount of reduction of a fine for reasons of inability to pay was insufficiently explained. Together with the Court of Justice judgment in ICAP, this may encourage undertakings to bring forward cases where the Commission did not properly explain how it reached the imposed fine level. European courts have certainly shown that, up to the highest level, they are willing to take fining methodology points on board. It is up to companies involved in cartel investigations to appeal on such grounds when the Commission fails to properly explain its methodology when straying from its fining guidelines.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of August 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

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