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

04.01.2019 NL law
Partial fine reduction for Deutsche Telekom and Slovak Telekom for abuse of dominance

Short Reads - The General Court recently clarified that to establish a margin squeeze in the case of positive margins, the Commission needs to prove the exclusionary effects of the dominant company's pricing practices. It also indicated that in cases of refusal to grant access, it is not always necessary to establish the indispensability of the access.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Short Reads - Two recent publications confirm that it is possible for companies to cooperate with a European Commission investigation and still comply with the data protection rules. It is also possible for the Commission to deviate from certain data protection obligations in the interest of a competition law investigation. The tightrope between data protection and Commission investigations may not be as rigid as initially feared.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decision

Short Reads - The General Court recently dismissed the appeal brought by Canal+ against the decision of the European Commission making the commitments of Paramount legally binding. In 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections alleging that certain geo-blocking clauses in licensing agreements between film studios and pay-TV broadcasters had the object of restricting cross-border competition.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Guess what, online branding restrictions are on the Commission's radar

Short Reads - Companies are probably aware of the Commission's eagerness to clamp down on online resale price maintenance and geo-blocking restrictions. The recent fine for vertical restraints by clothing company Guess marks a new dot on the Commission's radar. Restrictions on retailers using a supplier's brand names for online search advertising purposes are just as much a no-go.

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