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

02.11.2021 NL law
Evidentiecriterium door de Afdeling ontgroend: weigering om terug te komen van boete evident onredelijk

Short Reads - De Afdeling oordeelt in haar uitspraak van 28 april 2021 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:908) voor de eerste keer expliciet dat een weigering om van een in rechte onaantastbaar besluit terug te komen evident onredelijk is. Dat de Afdeling het door haar afgestofte evidentiecriterium nu ook toepast, is een goede reden om deze uitspraak te bespreken in een blog. In dit blog gaan wij daarnaast ook in op enkele elementen uit de Wet arbeid vreemdelingen die in de uitspraak naar voren komen.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission’s record fine for gun jumping upheld

Short Reads - Pre-closing covenants protecting the target’s value or commercial integrity pending merger clearance from the European Commission must be drafted carefully. The General Court confirmed the Commission’s record-breaking fines on Altice for violating the EU Merger Regulation’s notification and standstill obligations. According to the General Court, the mere possibility of exercising decisive influence over the target can result in a gun jumping breach.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission reveals first piece of antitrust sustainability puzzle

Short Reads - The European Commission has published a Policy Brief setting out its preliminary views on how to fit the European Green Deal’s sustainability goals into the EU competition rules. Companies keen to be green may be left in limbo by a looming clash with more far-reaching proposals from national competition authorities. More pieces of the antitrust sustainability puzzle will fall into place as soon as the ongoing review of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation is finalised.

Read more