Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
Casino Siteleri
Kayseri escort
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
Short Reads

CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

05.03.2020 NL law

Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Similarly, whistleblowers may appeal cartel decisions, even if they were granted immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. Irrespective of a fortuitous outcome of the administrative procedure, companies should therefore maintain a view of the bigger picture when deciding whether to appeal.

According to Dutch law, appellants must have a legitimate interest in bringing a procedure in order to be admissible in court. The case at hand confirms that such a legitimate interest also exists if the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) does not impose a fine (or imposes a zero euro fine), but does hold the company liable for a cartel infringement.

In 2017, the ACM imposed fines on three companies and two de facto managers for a price fixing agreement. During the objection procedure, a parent company’s fine was withdrawn due to inability to pay, but its liability for the cartel infringement remained intact.

On appeal, the parent company argued that – despite the fortuitous outcome of no fine – it still had an interest in bringing proceedings against the cartel decision. The Rotterdam District Court found that there was no such interest, given the lack of negative legal consequences for the parent company. However, on further appeal, the CBb agreed with the parent company’s arguments that it did have an interest, particularly because of the potential consequences of the decision holding it liable for the cartel infringement, such as exclusion from future tenders, follow-on damages claims, and a fine increase in case of recidivism. In line with its earlier ruling relating to a zero euro fine for a whistleblower (see here and here), the CBb therefore ruled that the parent company can bring an action against a decision establishing that it has committed a competition law violation, even if no fine is imposed.

The case has now been referred back to the District Court. In addition, the publication of the ACM decision has been suspended until six weeks after the new ruling of the District Court (see here).


This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of March 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:


Related news

07.10.2020 LU law
Luxembourg tax measures on non-cooperative jurisdictions: EU blacklist updated

Articles - On 6 October 2020, the European Union list of non-cooperative jurisdictions (the “EU List") was updated. The changes have an impact on bill of law nº 7547, providing that, as from 1 January 2021, interest or royalties, accrued or paid, should no longer be deductible for tax purposes when the beneficiary is a related enterprise established in a country included in the EU List.

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