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

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

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

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