umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Articles

Belgian Competition Authority fined an undertaking in a merger control investigation for failure to provide information on time

Belgian Competition Authority fined an undertaking in a merger control investigation for failure to provide information on time

Belgian Competition Authority fined an undertaking in a merger control investigation for failure to provide information on time

03.11.2015

On 30 September 2015, the Competition College of the Belgian Competition Authority ("the College") imposed a fine of EUR 50,000 on the press group Sanoma Media Belgium ("Sanoma") for impeding a merger control investigation.

As part of the merger control investigation into the acquisition of some of its magazine titles by De Persgroep, Sanoma had to respond to an information request. On the day of the deadline, Sanoma provided some market information but indicated that it did not have related market studies.

However, on the last day of the time limit for the case team to complete the investigation, Sanoma sent important documents, including a market study dating back to 2012 and an accompanying presentation. Considering that such negligence amounts to an infringement of Article IV.71, §1 of the Belgian Code of Economic Law, the case team requested the College to impose a fine on Sanoma. The College found that Sanoma manifestly impeded the investigation because the information was provided so late and the case team could not take it into account. 

When calculating the amount of the fine, the College used the 2014 Belgian Fining Guidelines. The basic amount was set taking into account the 2014 Belgian turnover from the sale of the magazine titles forming part of the transaction with De Persgroep, but adjusted for the following mitigating circumstances:

  • the fact that Sanoma spontaneously provided the information at stake, which justified a reduction of 5% of the basic amount;
  • the absence of precedents at the Belgian and EU level; and
  • the fact that it was the first time that the 2014 Fining Guidelines were applied in such a case, which justified another reduction of 1 to 5% of the basic amount.

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

Back to top

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more