Short Reads

ACM lowered fines in the pepper cartel case

ACM lowered fines in the pepper cartel case

ACM lowered fines in the pepper cartel case

02.08.2016 NL law

On 18 July 2016, the Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") published a revised decision in the pepper cartel case. In 2012, the ACM imposed fines on pepper grower cooperatives and sales organisations for participating in a price-fixing cartel.

In its revised decision, the ACM lowered the fines after the Rotterdam District Court ruled that the ACM had to re-apply the fining caps. In addition, the ACM adjusted the fines in view of the parties' inability to pay.

Under the applicable fining rules, the ACM could impose fines for cartel infringements of up to EUR 450,000 or 10% of the company's annual turnover, whichever amount was higher. In its judgment, the Court confirmed that when fines are imposed on associations of undertakings, such as the pepper grower cooperatives, the ACM could impose a maximum fine of 10% of the combined annual turnover of its members. Therefore, the fine of the cooperatives should have been based on the total turnover of their pepper growing members (i.e. turnover not limited to pepper sales). The ACM corrected this in its recent decision.

Unlike the cooperatives, the ACM did not consider the sales organisations to qualify as 'associations of undertakings'. Consequently, the Court determined that when calculating the fines, the ACM should have taken into account the turnover of the sales organisations themselves rather than that of the pepper growers.

Although the fines were imposed on the cooperatives and sales organisations, the ACM took into account that the pepper growers would ultimately bear the cost of the fines. Therefore, in order to avoid double fining, the fines imposed on the cooperatives were lowered by the amounts imposed on the sales organisations.

After the Court referred the case back to the ACM, the cooperatives submitted that they were (partially) unable to pay the fines. The ACM determined that the fine calculation should depend on a party's "ability to pay in a broad sense", i.e. on the whole organisation's ability to pay over the long term. Where it concerns associations of undertakings, this means account has to be taken of the financial standing of the associations' members. The financial information provided by the cooperatives led the ACM to further lower the fines. The total fines of EUR 14 million initially imposed on the cooperatives and sales organisations were reduced to EUR 1.63 million.

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

  1. Court of Justice clarifies the legality of royalty payments in the event of revocation or non-infringement of the licensed patent 
  2. General Court confirms fines imposed on the basis of economic continuity in maritime hose cartel 
  3. European Commission imposes record cartel fine on truck manufacturers for price fixing 
  4. European Commission deems support measures in favour of Dutch football clubs in line with State aid rules 
  5. Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages arising from antitrust infringements committed by their subsidiaries 
  6. ACM lowered fines in the pepper cartel case 
  7. Dutch Supreme Court confirms the availability of a passing-on defence in antitrust damages litigation 
  8. Brussels Court of Appeal rules that concerted lobbying efforts of cement producers do not breach competition law 
  9. Belgian competition authority upholds licence refusal to football club White Star

Source: Competition Law Newsletter August 2016

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring