Articles

New Leniency Guidelines applicable in Belgium since 22 March 2016

New Leniency Guidelines applicable in Belgium since 22 March 2016

New Leniency Guidelines applicable in Belgium since 22 March 2016

04.04.2016 NL law

On 22 March 2016, the new Belgian Leniency Guidelines (the "Guidelines") entered into force. They apply to all leniency applications submitted after that date.

The most important change introduced by the Guidelines consists of practical rules for leniency applications submitted by individuals. Clarification regarding how these rules are implemented was required, particularly since the option for individuals to obtain immunity for ‘whistle blowing’ became part of the Belgian Code of Economic Law in 2013, and in light of potential sanctions against individuals for certain types of competition law infringements.

Individuals are always granted full immunity, regardless of where they rank in the order of applications submitted, provided that they respect the other conditions set out in the Guidelines. This is different from corporate leniency, where only the first applicant can obtain full immunity. The Guidelines also clarify that individuals may apply for leniency alone or together with the undertaking or association of undertakings for whom they work or used to work.

Furthermore, the Guidelines introduce new reduction percentages in relation to partial exemptions. When the Belgian Competition Authority already has information regarding the cartel, it may grant partial reduction to undertakings which submit evidence with a significant value. The fine reduction available to the first partial leniency applicant remains the same, namely between 30% and 50%. The second partial leniency applicant can obtain a reduction between 20% and 40% (previously 10-30%). The following applicants can receive a 10% to 30% reduction, which is the same as in the previous Guidelines.

While the conditions to be respected by the applicants, including the information that they should provide, are still more or less the same as those under the former leniency provisions, the 2016 Guidelines do provide some practical clarifications. These include the confidentiality obligations of a leniency applicant, the language to be used in the application, how to make contact with the Auditor General in order to submit such an application or to obtain information about the availability of an immunity application for the first undertaking, and the possibility to obtain a marker.

The Guidelines are still limited to cartel cases, with the express exclusion of other type of horizontal agreements and of vertical agreements. To the extent that a hub-and-spoke cartel can be qualified as a cartel, it will be covered. A hub-and-spoke cartel is an exchange of information between retailers (competitors) through one or more of their common suppliers. The Belgian Competition Authority has already granted immunity and leniency in a hub-and-spoke cartel case in 2015.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice annulled Commission's requests for information in cement cartel case
2.
Initial findings of Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry show widespread use of geo-blocking
3.
ACM fined cold-storage companies and their executives EUR 12.5 million for breaching competition law during merger negotiations
4.
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal confirmed that ACM can use EU-wide turnover in calculating the fines in onion cartel case
5. Belgian Constitutional Court rules that actions for antitrust damages cannot be time-barred before the final infringement decision is rendered

Team

Related news

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

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more