Short Reads

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

03.10.2016 NL law

On 31 August 2016, the European Commission published its decision rendering the commitments offered by fourteen container liner shipping companies legally binding. The Commission closed its formal investigation that it started in 2011 without finding any competition law infringements. However, the Commission did establish that the practice of publishing future price increases for identified trade routes could potentially allow competitors to coordinate their pricing behavior.  

The carriers regularly announced their intended future price increases for freight services on their websites, via the press, or in other ways. These announcements indicated the amount of the increase per transported container unit, the relevant trade route and the planned implementation date. The Commission found that after such a price announcement, some or all of the other carriers announced similar intended rate increases for the same or similar routes and implementation dates. Announced price increases were sometimes postponed or modified by some of the container shipping companies, possibly aligning them with the announcements made by other carriers.

The Commission had concerns that the price announcements were of little value for customers, as they did not provide information on the new full prices they would be asked to pay. In addition, the announcements only had little committal value, so customers could not rely on them when making purchasing decisions. Furthermore, the Commission expressed concern that the carriers' practice may have allowed the companies to explore each other's pricing intentions and coordinate their behaviour. According to the Commission, this may have enabled the carriers to 'test' the implementation of a potential price increase, thereby reducing strategic uncertainty about the companies' future behaviour.

In order to address the Commission's competition concerns, the carriers offered commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The parties offered that price announcements would: (i) contain at least the main elements of the total price, such as the base rate and security and handling charges, the services to which they apply and the period to which they relate; (ii) not be made more than 31 days before their implementation date; and (iii) be binding on the carriers for their validity period as maximum prices.

Public price announcements are common practice in several sectors and the Commission has not taken action against price signalling for a long time. However, in line with the ACM's views in the mobile operators case in the Netherlands, the Commission's commitment decision shows that announcements on future commercial conditions warrant extra caution, such as providing definite information that is valuable for customers.

 

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

  1. Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel
  2. General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement
  3. European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda
  4. European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple
  5. Commission publishes Preliminary Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry
  6. Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring