Short Reads

Court of Justice confirms Commission's approach in its first hybrid settlement case

Court of Justice confirms Commission's approach in its first hybrid settlement case

Court of Justice confirms Commission's approach in its first hybrid settlement case

01.02.2017 NL law

On 12 January 2017, the Court of Justice fully dismissed the appeal of Timab and its parent company Roullier (the "Roullier group") against an earlier General Court ("GC") ruling in the animal feed phosphate cartel.

Initially, the Commission opened settlement discussions for all participants in the cartel. However, Timab decided to pull out of the settlement procedure after the Commission communicated the fine range it intended to impose. Ultimately, following an extended procedure, the Commission fined Timab EUR 20 million more than the amount proposed during the settlement discussions, despite reducing the infringement's duration by 15 years. Timab's higher fine for a shorter period can be explained by the Commission's inability to rely on evidence Timab submitted with regard to the excluded infringement period. That evidence warranted a higher reduction of the fine during the settlement procedure but was of less relevance for the infringement established in the ordinary procedure. The Commission's approach was upheld by the GC [see our June 2015 Newsletter]. The Roullier group appealed this judgment.

The Court of Justice upheld the GC's conclusion that the appellants' procedural rights were not violated when they switched to the ordinary procedure. In its reasoning, the Court emphasized that Timab had gained procedural rights inherent to the ordinary procedure, such as getting full access to the evidence file, receiving a full statement of objections and the right to an oral hearing. "Consequently, the appellants were in no way legally harmed by that approach, in which the elements, described as ‘new’, [...] were taken into account." The Court confirmed that the appellants could not rely on any legitimate expectation that the estimated fine communicated to them during the settlement procedure would be maintained in the ordinary procedure.

The ruling of the EU's highest Court on the first "hybrid" settlement case underlines the risks of pulling out of settlement discussions. The distinct nature of both procedures allows the Commission to take additional and new information into account when determining the gravity and duration of the infringement in the course of the ordinary procedure and on this basis depart from the (maximum) fine ranges communicated during the course of the settlement procedure.

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

  1. Court of Justice clarifies rules on evidence in bathroom fittings cartel judgments
  2. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  3. General Court awards damages for failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time
  4. District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

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

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

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