umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016

01.07.2016 NL law

On 1 July 2016, the new law increasing the maximum fines that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") can impose for an infringement of competition law will enter into force. The legislative proposal was adopted by the Dutch parliament at the end of 2015. The main purpose of the new law is to increase the deterrent effect of fines [see our August 2014 newsletter].

 

Under the previous fining rules, the ACM can impose fines of up to EUR 450,000 or 10% of the company's annual turnover, depending on which amount is higher. According to the new rules the maximum fine will increase to EUR 900,000 or, if higher, 10% of a company's turnover. For cartel infringements, the maximum fine is multiplied by the number of years in which the cartel was in place subject to a maximum of four years. This means that the new maximum fine for cartel infringements in the Netherlands is now 40% of a company's worldwide annual turnover.

As a result, the ACM's fining guidelines will also be adjusted from 1 July 2016. In addition to a new maximum fine for individuals of EUR 900,000, these guidelines set out a new methodology for the fining of natural persons. The guidelines now distinguish between different ranges of the basic fine for individuals, which are in particular linked to the annual turnover of the company.

The previous fine maximums remain applicable to infringements of competition law that started before 1 July 2016, even if they come to an end after this date. This means that the new maximum fines will only apply to infringements starting on or after 1 July 2016.

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

1. Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel
2. General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request
3. General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction
4. District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
5. Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands

6. General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

Related news

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepts jurisdiction in competition law damages case concerning Greek beer market

Short Reads - On 16 February 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) set aside a judgment of the Amsterdam District Court (the District Court) in which the District Court declined jurisdiction over the alleged claims against Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken N.V. (Heineken), in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB).

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
ECJ clarifies limits of antitrust limitation periods

Short Reads - Companies confronted with antitrust investigations and fines may find safeguard behind the rules governing limitation periods (often termed ‘statutes of limitation’). However, two preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that those rules are not necessarily set in stone. According to the ECJ, national time limits relating to the imposition of antitrust fines may require deactivation if these limits result in a ‘systemic risk’ that antitrust infringements may go unpunished.

Read more

12.02.2021 EU law
After the Uber case and the Airbnb case … the Star Taxi App case: focus on the question of the qualification as “Information Society Service”

Articles - Societal and digital developments are reflected in the case law of the CJEU. For several years now, European judges resolve disputes relating to digital applications and the services they provide. On 3 December 2020, they handed down a judgment in a case concerning Star Taxi App. This blog analyses the Star Taxi App case law in the light of the Uber case law and the Airbnb case law. The three judgments have in common the question of the qualification of services as Information Society Services.  

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
Game over? Gaming companies fined for geo-blocking

Short Reads - The Commission’s cross-border sales crusade seems far from over. The EUR 7.8 million fine imposed on distribution platform owner Valve and five PC video games publishers for geo-blocking practices is the most recent notch in the Commission’s belt. Food producer Mondelĕz may be next on the Commission’s hit list: a formal investigation into possible cross-border trade restrictions was opened recently.

Read more