Short Reads

Prove it or lose it: court sets aside ACM fines in two separate cases

Prove it or lose it: court sets aside ACM fines in two separate cases

Prove it or lose it: court sets aside ACM fines in two separate cases

04.07.2019 NL law

The Rotterdam District Court recently confirmed the high bar which has been set for the ACM when proving its case: the court annulled the fines imposed by the ACM in two different cases and, significantly, each for the same reason.

The court first set aside a fine imposed on Midac, a battery importer, because the ACM had failed to prove that Midac intended to contribute to the common objectives of the cartel and thus participated in a single continuous infringement. The ACM's second fine, imposed on Dutch railway operator NS, was struck down due to insufficient substantiation of the ACM's claim that NS held a dominant position on the main railway network.

If a company is subject to an ACM fine, it would therefore be advisable to double-check the thoroughness of the ACM's investigation and substantiation of its claims when considering appeal.

Single continuous infringement and Midac
In 2017, the ACM imposed a fine of EUR 583,000 on Midac for participation in a price-fixing cartel for forklift truck batteries. According to the ACM, the price-fixing agreements, involving a trade association and a number of battery importers, had been in place between 2004 and 2013. The ACM qualified the cartel as a single continuous infringement in which Midac had participated from 1 January 2013. The ACM based this finding on (1) telephone conversations and emails between Midac's director and one of the other battery importers involved, and (2) Midac accepting the price lists sent by the trade association without explicitly distancing itself from the price-fixing agreements.

The court first reiterated earlier case law which establishes that for a company to be considered as participating in a single continuous infringement, there must be proof that the company:

  1. intended to contribute to the cartel's common objective with its conduct, and
  2. was aware of the conduct of the other participants aimed to achieve the cartel's common objective.

According to the court, the ACM had failed to prove these requirements had been fulfilled in this particular case. The fact that Midac's director had been aware of the cartel due to his earlier employment at other battery importers did not prove that Midac intended to contribute to the cartel's common objective or wanted to join it, particularly since alternative explanations for this contact were available. Similarly, the price lists Midac received from the trade association were no sign of Midac wanting to contribute to the cartel's common objectives, as Midac neither reacted to receiving these lists nor used them for determining its prices. The court therefore set aside the fine imposed by the ACM on Midac. The ACM has stated it is studying the ruling and will later decide whether it will appeal to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal.

Dominant position and NS
Also in 2017, the ACM imposed a fine of nearly EUR 41 million on NS for abuse of dominance. According to the ACM, NS had abused its dominant position on the main railway network by, amongst other things, submitting a loss-making bid for a public transportation tender in Limburg. The bid was intended to obstruct its competitors and prevent possible future decentralisation of the main railway network (see also our July 2017 newsletter).

On appeal, the court was unconvinced by the ACM's arguments that NS held a dominant position on the relevant market. According to the ACM, NS could act independently on the main railway network market because:

  1. NS is the sole concession holder of the main railway network until 2025;
  2. the contracting authority had no real alternative, other than NS, to award the concession to;
  3. there was insufficient buyer power from the contracting authority and end users, such as train passengers, to keep NS' conduct in check.

The court found these reasons insufficient to conclude on NS' dominance. If NS did indeed hold a dominant position, it could have steered the negotiations over the concession conditions in such way so as to leave itself enough leeway to act independently. But since the ACM had neglected to investigate if and how the concession conditions affected NS' conduct, it could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt that NS had a dominant position on the main railway network market.

Even though it was therefore no longer necessary to consider whether the conduct constituted abuse, the court nonetheless examined the question of whether allegedly the loss-making bid for the Limburg concession could be considered abusive. It referred to earlier EU case law to point out that, in order to take account of an abuse on a market other than that on which the dominant position was identified, it is necessary to prove that there is a connecting link between the two markets.

According to the court, the ACM had failed to demonstrate a sufficiently close link between the allegedly loss-making bid for the Limburg concession and NS' position on the main railway network market. The Limburg concession was not a decisive factor in the decision whether the main railway network would be decentralised as of 2024 (the expiration date of the current main rail network concession). Envisaged EU regulatory proposals and political developments led the court to believe that the effects of the conduct regarding the Limburg concession on the potential market for (all or part of) the main railway network (after 2024) were insufficiently certain to be considered as a sufficiently close link. The court therefore annulled the fine imposed on NS. The ACM is currently analysing the ruling and will then determine any further steps to take.

Conclusion
Both rulings show that in order to improve its track record, the ACM will need to expend more effort on finding proof of infringements before imposing fines – a key factor which companies should consider when deciding whether to settle or appeal fines imposed on them.

 

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

Team

Related news

24.09.2020 BE law
Stibbe hosts a webinar on dawn raids organised by IBJ/IJE

Seminar - On 24 September 2020, several Stibbe lawyers ​​​​​explain the rights and obligations of companies when confronted with announced or unannounced raids. What do to when, for example, tax authorities, the competition authorities, police services or a bailiff are at your doorstep?

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected Nexans’ appeal in the power cables cartel case. The Commission started the dawn raid at Nexans’ premises, but due to lack of time finished the raid at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The ECJ found that the Commission can copy data and assess its relevance to the investigation at its own premises, while safeguarding companies’ rights of defence.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

Short Reads - As well as granting companies leeway on certain COVID-19 initiated collaborations (see our May 2020 newsletter), the coronavirus outbreak has also led competition authorities to take a more lenient stance towards fine calculations and payments. The European Commission has extended the due date for fine payments by an additional three months in response to potential short-term liquidity issues brought about by the pandemic. Similar reasons led the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal to reduce a EUR 1 million cartel fine to just EUR 10,000.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
The ACM’s Green Deal: achieving sustainability via competition law?

Short Reads - The ACM has issued draft guidelines on the application of competition law to sustainability agreements. Companies entering into agreements that restrict competition but contribute to governmental sustainability objectives – i.e. lower CO2 emissions – may expect more room for collaboration. The proposed framework would allow these types of agreements if their anti-competitive effects are outweighed by their environmental benefits to society as a whole (rather than to in-market consumers only, as under the existing framework).

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more