Short Reads

ACM clarifies that a party cannot object to the fine imposed on another addressee of the decision

ACM clarifies that a party cannot object to the fine imposed on another addressee of the decision

ACM clarifies that a party cannot object to the fine imposed on another addressee of the decision

02.05.2016 EU law

On 18 April 2016, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") released the public versions of (i) its decision and (ii) its decision on administrative appeal in the prefabricated garage manufacturers case. In the decision on administrative appeal, the ACM clarified that a party cannot object to a fine imposed on another addressee of the decision, because it does not qualify as an "interested party" for that part of the decision.

In the decision, the ACM found that two parties active on the Dutch market, Rekers Betonwerk ("Rekers") and Juwel Betonbauteile ("Juwel"), had concluded anticompetitive agreements. According to the ACM, they had shared customers and concluded price-fixing agreements. Rekers had notified the ACM of the cartel and was therefore granted full leniency. It thus received a 100% fine reduction. Juwel received a fine of EUR 306,500.

Juwel subsequently objected to both the fact that is was held liable for the infringement and the fact that Rekers was granted a 100% fine reduction. In its decision on administrative appeal, the ACM rejected all of Juwel's grounds of objection and upheld the original decision. Most interestingly, the ACM decided that Juwel's request for revoking Rekers' 100% fine reduction was inadmissible.

In that respect, the ACM noted that all parties formally receive separate decisions. These decisions are identical with regard to the content, but they differ in legal effect. In this particular case, the decision addressed to Juwel imposed a fine on Juwel, while the decision addressed to Rekers granted Rekers a 100% fine reduction. Parties only qualify as an "interested party" to a decision that is addressed to them. Therefore, Juwel was not an "interested party" with regard to the ACM decision granting Rekers a fine reduction. Additionally, the ACM concluded that Juwel lacked a material interest in the determination of the fine reduction granted to Rekers. Even if Juwel's request had been granted, this would only have resulted in Rekers receiving a lower fine reduction.


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

1. Commission reduced EURIBOR cartel fine imposed on Société Générale by EUR 218 million
2. Commission publishes commitments offered by Paramount Pictures in pay-TV investigation

Team

Related news

01.08.2018 EU law
Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Short Reads - On 7 June 2018, the Belgian Court of Cassation, ruled that a decision of the Pharmacists Association Appeals Council (Appeals Council) prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords to offer over-the-counter (OTC) products violated Belgian competition law because the Appeals Council did not sufficiently justify why such a prohibition was necessary for health reasons. The Appeals Council must now issue a new decision.

Read more

01.08.2018 EU law
General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons

Short Reads - On 13 July 2018, the General Court annulled the EUR 1.13 million fine imposed on Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Stührk) by the European Commission in 2013 for Stührk's participation in the shrimp cartel. The Court ruled that the Commission had failed to adequately state reasons in the contested decision as to why the cartel participants were granted divergent fine reductions.

Read more

01.08.2018 EU law
Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Short Reads - On 20 July 2018, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland published another interim judgment in the ongoing proceedings between TenneT, the grid operator in the Netherlands, and ABB in relation to the gas insulated switchgear (GIS) infringement. After the Dutch Supreme Court had confirmed in a judgment of 8 July 2016 [see our August 2016 Newsletter] that the passing-on defence is available under Dutch law, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland decided to appoint independent economic experts to provide input on the calculation of overcharge and the existence of pass-on.

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