Articles

Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes

Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes

Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes

02.02.2016 NL law

On 20 January 2016, the Court of Justice ruled on the relationship between leniency applications submitted to the Commission and to national competition authorities ("NCAs") concerning the same cartel. In response to three questions referred by the Italian Council of State, the Court of Justice found that:

(i) instruments adopted within the context of the European Competition Network ("ECN") are not binding on NCAs;

(ii) there is no "legal link" between an immunity application submitted to the Commission and a summary application to an NCA in respect of the same cartel; and

(iii) EU law does not preclude national authorities from accepting a summary application for immunity even though the undertaking concerned did not apply for full immunity from fines to the Commission.

The judgment concerns leniency applications lodged by logistics company DHL before the Commission and the Italian competition authority ("AGCM") in 2007 and 2008 relating to several infringements in the international freight forwarding sector.

DHL received conditional immunity from the Commission for the entire freight forwarding sector (i.e. sea, air, and road forwarding). The Commission ultimately decided to limit its investigation to the air freight forwarding sector, thus leaving it open for NCAs to investigate infringements in the sea and road sectors. In parallel, DHL was the first to submit a summary application to the AGCM.

In 2011, the AGCM adopted an infringement decision concerning the road freight forwarding sector in Italy. DHL, however, failed to receive full immunity because the AGCM considered that DHL's initial summary application only provided details with respect to infringements in the international sea and air freight forwarding sectors. DHL subsequently appealed the decision up to Italy's highest court, essentially arguing that its summary application should have been assessed in light of the immunity application submitted to the Commission. In support of its appeal, DHL relied on the ECN Model Leniency Programme, the Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities and the Commission Leniency Notice. Within this context, the Italian Council of State referred questions to the Court of Justice on the legal status of these measures.

The Court of Justice first held that instruments adopted by the ECN, including the ECN Model Leniency Programme, are not binding on NCAs. In that respect, the Court of Justice referred to its previous judgment in Pfleiderer where it had found the same to be true for the Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities and the Commission Leniency Notice.

The Court of Justice also found that no provision of EU law requires NCAs to interpret a summary application in light of an application for immunity submitted to the Commission, irrespective of whether or not that summary application accurately reflects the content of the application submitted to the Commission. NCAs are also not required to contact the Commission or the undertaking itself in order to establish whether that undertaking has found specific examples of unlawful conduct in the sector allegedly covered by the application for immunity but which is not covered by the summary application.

Lastly, the Court of Justice held that NCAs are not precluded from accepting a summary application for immunity from an undertaking which has not submitted an application for full immunity to the Commission but rather an application for reduction of the fine.

As there is no legal link between EU and national leniency applications, companies should ensure to submit sufficiently detailed leniency applications in each relevant Member State - in particular as regards its scope - in parallel to an application to the Commission.

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

  1. Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings
  2. Court of Justice clarified the concept of a concerted practice for unilateral announcements
  3. Court of Justice dismissed Toshiba's appeal in the power transformers cartel case
  4. Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid
  5. German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

Team

Related news

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

02.07.2018 EU law
General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

Short Reads - On 20 June 2018, the General Court rendered its judgment in two connected appeals submitted by České dráhy, the Czech Railways Operator, challenging two dawn raid decisions by the European Commission. Based on arguments concerning the scope of the investigation, the Court annulled in part the first dawn raid decision and fully upheld the second dawn raid decision.

Read more

29.06.2018 EU law
Un dossier de soumission imparfait peut-il être rectifié par le paiement d’une amende ?

Articles - Dans l’arrêt du 28 février 2018, la Cour de justice donne son avis sur la possibilité pour un soumissionnaire de rectifier, pendant la phase de sélection et moyennant paiement d’une amende, son dossier de soumission imparfait par un ajout et/ou commentaire. La Cour précise que cette mesure n’est, en principe, valable que si la nature de l’irrégularité constatée permet une rectification ultérieure et que le montant de l’amende est proportionnel à l’importance de l’irrégularité constatée. 

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