Articles

ACM acknowledged disproportionality of fines in magazine-pack suppliers cartel

ACM acknowledged disproportionality of fines in magazine-pack suppliers cartel

ACM acknowledged disproportionality of fines in magazine-pack suppliers cartel

03.11.2015 NL law

On 31 August 2015, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") rendered its decision on administrative appeal in the magazine-pack suppliers cartel case. While the ACM upheld its decision sanctioning thirteen companies and several executives (the "Parties") for cartel activities, it reduced the fines imposed on seven companies because the fines were disproportionate.

In its decision of 7 November 2013, the ACM imposed a total fine of EUR 6 million on thirteen magazine-pack suppliers for cartel activities consisting of market allocation and the exchange of commercially sensitive information. Various executives of the companies were held jointly and severally liable for part of the fines imposed on the companies.

Following administrative appeals from the Parties, the ACM acknowledged that the initial fines imposed on seven of the Parties were in breach of the principle of proportionality since they amounted to excessive percentages of their annual turnover. The fining cap in the Dutch Competition Act amounts to 10% of an undertaking's turnover, or an amount of EUR 450,000, if the latter is higher. In this case, the maximum fine of EUR 450,000 imposed on seven of the companies was considerably higher than 10% of their turnovers. Although the ACM considered it was entitled to levy fines exceeding 10% of the companies' turnovers, it nonetheless reduced their respective fines to EUR 250,000 or EUR 125,000.

Interestingly, and despite concerns expressed by the ACM’s Advisory Committee on a lack of legal basis, the ACM confirmed that the executives were jointly and severally liable for part of the fines imposed on the companies. It held that in this particular case, joint and several liability was appropriate, because there were close financial and personal links between the undertakings and their executives. The ACM also considered that joint and several liability would be less stringent on the executives, as separate individual fines would have led to higher aggregate fines imposed on them.

Also contrary to the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the ACM rejected arguments that it should have applied a de minimis exemption that entered into force during the period of the infringement. The ACM considered that the lex mitior principle, which holds that the more lenient law needs to be applied if the laws governing an offence have been amended, did not apply. According to the ACM, the lex mitior principle applies only to amendments in the law concerning the illegal nature of certain acts, which would not be the case here. The ACM also deemed relevant that 90% of the infringement occurred before the new de minimis exemption entered into force in 2011.

The case shows that, in exceptional circumstances, the ACM can depart from its fining guidelines and reduce fines on the basis of the general principle of proportionality.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2015. Other articles in this newsletter:

Back to top

Team

Related news

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

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