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

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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