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 NL 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

18.02.2019 NL law
Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Short Reads - As it stands, the UK will exit the European Union at midnight on 29 March 2019. Therefore, businesses within the UK, or with trade relations with the UK, would be best advised to assume that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. The exchange of personal data  within the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a no-deal Brexit, the GDPR will cease to be applicable in the UK upon its EU exit.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

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