Short Reads

Envelope maker's cartel fine annulled in first successful European settlement appeal

Envelope maker's cartel fine annulled in first successful European settlement appeal

Envelope maker's cartel fine annulled in first successful European settlement appeal

02.01.2017 NL law

On 13 December 2016, the General Court ("GC") annulled the € 4.7 million cartel fine the European Commission imposed on envelope maker Printeos. The GC ruled that the Commission failed to state adequate reasons in the settlement decision with regard to why the cartelists were granted different fine reductions.

On 10 December 2014, the Commission fined five envelope makers for coordinating prices and allocating customers for certain types of envelopes. The envelope makers had entered into a voluntary settlement for which they each received a ten per cent fine reduction. In addition, Printeos received a fifty per cent fine reduction because it cooperated with the Commission during the investigation. The Commission further adjusted the fines of the cartelists on the basis of paragraph 37 of the fining guidelines. This paragraph allows the Commission to depart from the methodology set out in the fining guidelines if the particularities of a given case require such an adjustment.

Printeos appealed the settlement decision arguing that the Commission failed to provide the reasons why it adjusted the basic amount of the fines imposed on the cartelists. In particular, Printeos complained that it was unclear why one of the parties received an additional fine reduction and that therefore it was unable to assess whether the settlement decision was in line with the principle of equal treatment.

The GC agreed with Printeos. It ruled that the principle of equal treatment requires the Commission to explain with sufficient clarity and precision how it deviated from the methodology of the guidelines. Because the underlying decision did not contain sufficient reasoning, Printeos was not in a position to effectively dispute the merits of the Commission’s approach. Subsequently, the GC was unable to fully exercise its powers of judicial review with regard to whether the principle of equal treatment had been complied with.

Therefore, the GC concluded that the contested decision was vitiated by a failure to state adequate reasons. As a consequence, the GC annulled the contested settlement decision. The judgement shows that undertakings can successfully appeal settlement decisions and underlines the Commission’s duty to adequately state reasons for its settlement decisions.

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

1. General Court rules on the concept of a single and continuous infringement in the smart card chips cartel case 
2. District Court of Limburg rules that damages claims in the Dutch prestressing steel case are time-barred
3. ACM established guiding principles in relation to sustainability arrangements
4. Belgian Competition Authority confirms that the acquisition by a dominant player of a small competitor is not automatically an abuse of a dominant position

Team

Related news

30.04.2019 EU law
Climate goals and energy targets: legal perspectives

Seminar - On Tuesday April 30th, Stibbe organizes a seminar on climate goals and energy targets. Climate change has incited different international and supranational institutions to issue climate goals and renewable energy targets. Both the UN and the EU have led this movement with various legal instruments.

Read more

15.03.2019 EU law
European Court of Justice issues landmark ruling on parental liability

Short Reads - On 14 March the European Court of Justice issued a landmark judgment in the Skanska case. In this ruling, the Court of Justice held that parent companies can be held liable for the damage caused by a competition infringement committed by their subsidiary if the parent company (that holds all the shares in the subsidiary) has dissolved the subsidiary but continued its economic activity.

Read more

01.03.2019 NL law
Does selling a phone on an online marketplace make you a "trader" under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive?

Short Reads - Online marketplaces provide sales channels not only for professional traders but also for individuals selling second-hand goods. For buyers, online advertisements do not always make it clear whether the seller is a professional trader or an individual. This distinction is important because consumers buying from a professional trader can benefit from EU consumer laws, while these protections do not apply in consumer-to-consumer sales.

Read more

18.02.2019 BE law
Plan-MER voor Vlaams windturbinekader? Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen te rade bij Europa

Articles - Het wordt stilaan een traditie van de Belgische rechter om het Hof van Justitie te bevragen over de milieueffectenbeoordeling en -rapportage (MER). Na de Raad van State en het Grondwettelijk Hof is het de beurt aan de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen. In een tussenarrest van 4 december 2018 heeft de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen aan het Hof van Justitie een lijst met prejudiciële vragen gesteld over de plan-MER-plicht van het Vlaamse kader voor de uitbating van windturbines. Mogen we ons verwachten aan een juridische saga "d'Oultremont pt.II"?

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring