Short Reads

General Court partially annuls the European Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

General Court partially annuls the European Commission's ICAP decision

General Court partially annuls the European Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

01.12.2017 NL law

On 10 November 2017, the General Court (GC) partially annulled the European Commission's 2015 decision to fine UK-based broker ICAP close to EUR 15 million for "facilitating" various infringements relating to Yen interest rate derivatives (YIRDs). The GC's judgment provides a useful overview of the current state of EU case law on (i) "by object" infringements; (ii) the role of facilitators in cartel cases; (iii) "complex single and continuous infringements"; (iv) the presumption of innocence; and (v) the Commission's duty to state reasons when setting the level of a fine.

Background

By way of background, the Commission's YIRD investigation resulted in a "hybrid" scenario in which all parties, except for ICAP, chose to settle. In December 2013, the Commission adopted a settlement decision which resulted in fines for 8 financial institutions for their involvement in 7 bilateral cartels. The cartels consisted of discussions between the banks' traders aimed at influencing the Japanese Yen (JPY) LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR reference interest rates. These reference rates, in turn, were reflected in the pricing of Japanese Yen interest rate derivatives. No appeals were lodged against the settlement decision.

After ICAP notified the Commission of its intention to discontinue the settlement procedure, the Commission continued its investigation under the "regular" procedure. Subsequently, on 4 February 2015, the Commission adopted a decision holding ICAP liable for playing a facilitating role in 6 of the bilateral cartels mentioned above. In particular, the Commission claimed that ICAP disseminated misleading information and attempted to influence the panel of banks that set the JPY reference interest rates.

By object infringements and liability of cartel facilitators

On appeal, the GC dismissed ICAP's pleas concerning the "by object" nature of the infringement and the relevant standard of proof for establishing its liability as a facilitator. The GC held that each infringement contained evidence of coordination between the banks and exchanges of forward-looking confidential information that could affect pricing. In accordance with existing case law, the GC held that the Commission was entitled to qualify the infringements as by object restrictions.

The GC reiterated that companies that are not active on the market(s) affected by the infringement can be held liable as facilitators. To that effect, the GC held that the Commission should demonstrate whether the company intended to contribute to the common objectives of the participants and was or should have been aware of the actual or planned conduct put into effect by the other undertakings. For most of the infringements concerned, the GC found that the Commission had adduced enough evidence to prove ICAP's awareness of the cartels. For one infringement (the UBS/RBS 2008 infringement), however, the GC held that the underlying evidence was inconclusive. The GC annulled the Commission's decision insofar as ICAP was held liable for facilitating that cartel.

Duration, presumption of innocence and fine calculation

The GC also upheld ICAP's pleas relating to the duration of its participation in three other cartels. After reviewing the documentary evidence in detail, the GC found that the Commission was unable to hold ICAP liable for the entire duration of each of those cartels. In this case, the GC held that since JPY LIBOR rates are set on a daily basis "the effects of manipulating those rates are limited in time and that the manipulation needs to be repeated in order for those effects to continue". Therefore, the Commission could not "assume" that ICAP was continuously involved for the full duration of each cartel without proof that ICAP participated by adopting "positive measures" on a daily basis or "at least sufficiently limited in time". 

In addition, the GC found that the Commission infringed the presumption of ICAP's innocence by taking a position on ICAP's involvement in the 2013 settlement decision, i.e. before the Commission concluded its investigation into ICAP under the regular procedure in 2015. This finding, however, could not lead to annulment of the settlement decision since ICAP was not an addressee of that decision. At the same time, the GC essentially held that its review of ICAP's other pleas was sufficient to address the possible impact of a lack of impartiality in the contested decision.

With respect to the fine, the GC held that the Commission's decision provided insufficient detail on the methodology it had applied to determine the level of the fine. In particular, according to the GC, the decision did "not provide the minimum information which might have made it possible to understand and ascertain the relevance and weighting of the factors taken into consideration by the Commission in the determination of the basic amount of the fines". On that basis, the GC annulled the fine imposed on ICAP.

Implications

This judgment shows that the EU courts will continue to scrutinize the Commission's assessment of the facts and law in detail, while placing particular importance on the parties' (procedural) rights of defence. In so-called "hybrid cases" in particular, the GC highlights that settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties.

On the other hand, the ICAP judgment confirms that a third party can be held liable for playing a facilitating role in cartels, even if it was not active on the market concerned by the infringement [see our November 2015 Newsletter for an article on the AC-Treuhand case]. The GC also confirmed that conduct can be classified as a "by object" infringement, even if it does not relate directly to prices. Moreover, where the conduct is classified as a complex single and continuous (or repeated) infringement, the Commission is not required to prove that each constituent category of conduct qualifies as a "by object" restriction.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice rules on the application of competition law to agricultural producer organisations
  2. Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case
  3. National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision

Team

Related news

03.10.2019 NL law
It's in the details: HSBC fine quashed for insufficient reasoning

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the EUR 33.6 million fine imposed on banking group HSBC for its participation in the euro interest rates derivatives cartel. Full annulment was granted based on the Commission's failure to provide sufficiently detailed reasoning for the first step of the fine calculation, establishing the value of sales. As the value of sales could not be established in a straightforward way, the Commission used a proxy. When doing so, the Commission needs to properly explain its reasoning to allow the companies fined to understand how it arrived at the proxy. 

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The postman will no longer ring twice: Minister unblocks postal merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently blocked postal operator PostNL's acquisition of its only national competitor, Sandd, because this would create "a monopolist on the postal delivery market". However, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has overruled the ACM's decision on grounds of public interest. Invoking industrial policy or public interest reasons for merger clearance seems to be catching on.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The ACM has to pay: moral damages awarded to real estate traders

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) needs to cough up a total of EUR 120,000 in moral damages to three real estate traders. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal (CBb) agreed with the real estate traders that the annulment of the ACM's cartel decisions against them was insufficient compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of the length of the procedure and the press coverage of their cases.

Read more

02.10.2019 NL law
Politie aansprakelijk voor schietpartij Alphen aan den Rijn

Short Reads - De politie is aansprakelijk voor de schietpartij in een winkelcentrum Alphen aan den Rijn in 2011. Dat oordeelt de Hoge Raad in zijn arrest van 20 september 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1409). Bij deze schietpartij vonden zes mensen de dood en raakten zestien mensen gewond. De dader doodde ook zichzelf. Nabestaanden van dodelijke slachtoffers, slachtoffers die gewond raakten en winkeliers spreken de politie aan tot schadevergoeding. Zij voeren aan dat de politie de vergunning voor de wapens die de man gebruikte, niet had mogen verlenen.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
Margrethe Vestager to play matchmaker between enforcement and regulation

Short Reads - Current Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager may face even greater challenges in the next European Commission. President-elect Ursula von der Leyen has not only nominated Vestager for a second term as Commissioner for Competition, but has also asked her to coordinate the European Commission's digital agenda. As a result, Vestager may soon be tackling digital issues through competition enforcement whilst also proposing additional regulation to deal with these (and related) issues pre-emptively.

Read more

02.10.2019 NL law
Dutch national police service liable for unlawful granting of firearms permit

Short Reads - In a recent decision (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1409), the Supreme Court has decided that the Dutch national police force is liable for damage suffered by victims of a shooting which took place in a shopping centre in 2011; an event that shocked the Netherlands. The Supreme Court held that the police had unlawfully granted a permit for the firearms used in the shooting.

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