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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

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
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