Articles

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

05.01.2016 NL law

On 26 November 2015, the District Court of Rotterdam ("District Court") reduced the fines imposed by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") on two undertakings which infringed the cartel prohibition through "cover pricing" in several tender procedures for demolition contracts.

Cover pricing, a form of bid-rigging, occurs when one or more invited bidders in a tender procedure have no intention of winning but want to stay in favour with those involved in arranging contracts. Not submitting a (realistic) bid would entail the risk of not being considered for future tenders. In these instances, an undertaking asks a competitor for the value of its bid and subsequently submits a credible but higher bid.

In 2012 and 2013, the ACM rendered several decisions in which it concluded that these exchanges of commercially sensitive information gave rise to a concerted practice having as its object the restriction of competition, thus resulting in a breach of Article 6 of the Dutch Competition Act ("DCA"). According to the ACM, the undertakings created a misleading impression of a competitive bidding process. It imposed fines on a number of undertakings, varying from EUR 2,000 to EUR 69,000.

On appeal, the District Court confirmed that the exchange of commercially sensitive information through cover pricing restricts competition by object under Article 6 DCA. The argument that the concerted practice of cover pricing pursued the legitimate objective of remaining on tender lists was rejected. Furthermore, the parties argued that competition was not distorted because the given "cover price" was clearly non-competitive. The District Court also rejected this argument and stated that the undertakings distorted competition by not submitting prices independently from each other.

The District Court agreed with the ACM that cover pricing constitutes a "very serious" infringement. However, with regard to the applied gravity factor, it decided that the ACM inadequately expressed the difference in severity between "bid rigging" and "cover pricing". Cover pricing is to be regarded as less serious than bid-rigging, which eliminates competition among tender participants. The District Court therefore reduced the "gravity factor" from 1.75 to 1.5 and lowered the fines accordingly.

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

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