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

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring