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

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more