Short Reads

European Commission imposes record cartel fine on truck manufacturers for price fixing

European Commission imposes record cartel fine on truck manufacturers

European Commission imposes record cartel fine on truck manufacturers for price fixing

02.08.2016 NL law

On 19 July 2016, the European Commission imposed a EUR 2.93 billon fine on five major European truck manufacturers for colluding on pricing and passing on the costs of compliance with environmental standards to consumers. This is the highest fine ever imposed by the Commission with respect to a single cartel.

In January 2011, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections after truck manufacturer MAN applied for leniency, thus avoiding a EUR 1.2 billion fine. The other four companies, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF agreed to settle the case with the Commission. Under the Commission's settlement procedure, companies benefit from a 10% fine reduction if they acknowledge their participation in the infringement and accept liability for their conduct. The investigation will continue for Scania, since the company has decided not to settle the matter.

The companies engaged in infringing behavior consisting of three elements: (i) price coordination at the factory level of trucks; (ii) agreements to pass on costs for emission reduction technologies to customers; and (iii) collusion on the timing for the introduction of emission reduction technologies.

In addition to the fines imposed by the Commission, the companies face civil damages claims. Plaintiff law firms and litigation funding companies have already announced their intention of filing proceedings on behalf of business who bought trucks from these manufacturers during the cartel period.

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

30.04.2019 EU law
Climate goals and energy targets: legal perspectives

Seminar - On Tuesday April 30th, Stibbe organizes a seminar on climate goals and energy targets. Climate change has incited different international and supranational institutions to issue climate goals and renewable energy targets. Both the UN and the EU have led this movement with various legal instruments.

Read more

21.03.2019 NL law
15 aspects of Brexit you did not know

Short Reads - A Brexit without a deal, or with a deal that does not cover all relevant aspects, is still a potential scenario. We have highlighted a number of unexpected legal consequences of Brexit in such a no deal or incomplete deal scenario.

Read more

15.03.2019 EU law
European Court of Justice issues landmark ruling on parental liability

Short Reads - On 14 March the European Court of Justice issued a landmark judgment in the Skanska case. In this ruling, the Court of Justice held that parent companies can be held liable for the damage caused by a competition infringement committed by their subsidiary if the parent company (that holds all the shares in the subsidiary) has dissolved the subsidiary but continued its economic activity.

Read more

01.03.2019 NL law
Does selling a phone on an online marketplace make you a "trader" under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive?

Short Reads - Online marketplaces provide sales channels not only for professional traders but also for individuals selling second-hand goods. For buyers, online advertisements do not always make it clear whether the seller is a professional trader or an individual. This distinction is important because consumers buying from a professional trader can benefit from EU consumer laws, while these protections do not apply in consumer-to-consumer sales.

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