Short Reads

European Court of Justice: principle against double jeopardy does not preclude dual fines

European Court of Justice: principle against double jeopardy does not

European Court of Justice: principle against double jeopardy does not preclude dual fines

02.05.2019 NL law

The European Court of Justice recently confirmed that a national competition authority can impose a single fine on a company for infringements of both national and EU competition law without violating the principle against double jeopardy.

The Court of Justice held that the principle applies to the repetition of proceedings which have previously been concluded by a final decision and not to the situation in which a national competition authority applies national and EU competition rules in parallel to the same conduct. However, when imposing a single fine for breaches of national and EU competition law, a national competition authority must ensure that the fine is proportionate.

On 3 April 2019, the European Court of Justice confirmed in a request for a preliminary ruling from the Polish Supreme Court that a fine imposed on the basis of the simultaneous application of national and EU competition laws does not violate the principle of double jeopardy. This principle, which is enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, prohibits proceedings being brought against an undertaking on the basis of anticompetitive conduct for which it has already been penalised or declared not liable by an earlier decision that can no longer be challenged.

The request for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of proceedings between life insurer Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. (PZU Zycie) and the Head of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection concerning a fine imposed on PZU Zycie for the abuse of a dominant position. The fine consisted of two parts: a fine of approximately EUR 7.6m for an infringement of Polish competition law from 1 May 2001 to 25 October 2007, and a fine of approximately EUR 4m for an infringement of EU competition law from 1 May 2004 (the date of Poland's accession to the EU) to 25 October 2007. Therefore, for the period between 1 May 2004 and 25 October 2007, the fine reflected breaches of both national and EU competition laws.

PZU Zycie argued that it had been fined twice in respect of the same infringement, in violation of the principle against double jeopardy. This argument went to the heart of the system of parallel application of national and EU competition rules. The Court of Justice rejected PZU Zycie's argument, endorsing AG Wahl's view that the principle applies to the repetition of proceedings which have previously been concluded by a final decision, not to the situation in which a national competition authority applies national and EU competition rules in parallel. Put differently, the principle is not relevant to the determination of whether one act may constitute more than one infringement.

However, implicitly recognising that the imposition of a single fine for national and EU infringements may result in an unjustly high fine, the Court of Justice imposed an obligation on national competition authorities to ensure that the fine is proportionate.

Finally, following the finding that the principle of double jeopardy did not apply as there was no repetition of proceedings, the Court of Justice was not required to address other questions raised by the Polish Supreme Court regarding the scope of the principle in the context of EU competition law. These questions remain to be answered.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of May 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