Short Reads

New Belgian Act on damage claims for competition law infringements

New Belgian Act on damage claims for competition law infringements

New Belgian Act on damage claims for competition law infringements

03.07.2017 BE law

By an Act dated 6 June 2017, Belgium transposed the European Directive regarding actions for damages for infringements of competition law. The new provisions also apply to class actions of consumers. Class actions are extended to infringements of EU competition law.

The Act entered into force on 22 June 2017, but the procedural provisions will not apply to procedures introduced before 26 December 2014.

The Act introduces inter alia the following key principles:

  • Right to full compensation: Both direct and indirect victims can seek full compensation for the harm suffered. The Act does not introduce punitive damages.
  • Rebuttable presumption that competition law infringements cause harm: The burden of proof that there is no harm has shifted to the defendant. This is equally true if an indirect customer proves the extra cost of the direct purchaser.
  • A final decision of a competition authority is irrefutable evidence of the competition law infringement: A final decision of the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) or of the Court of Appeal upon appeal against the decision of the BCA proves the infringement. The same is true for a final decision of the European Commission or the final appeal decision against that decision. Final decisions rendered in other Member States constitute prima facie evidence of an infringement.
  • Possibility to order the disclosure of evidence: Judges can order the disclosure of certain – even confidential - evidence by the infringer(s) or a third party, including the BCA, subject to penalties from EUR 1000 up to EUR 10 million. An important exception exists for leniency statements and (final) settlement submissions, and particular rules apply to evidence included in the file of a Competition Authority.
  • Defendant’s right to invoke a passing-on defence: No compensation is due to the direct purchaser when the infringer can demonstrate that the overcharge was passed on to its own purchasers.
  • Joint and several liability: The victim can claim full compensation from any of the companies at fault (with a limitation for the full immunity applicant). An important exception exists for small or medium-sized enterprises and immunity recipients, which are, under certain conditions, only liable to their direct or indirect purchasers. Companies that settle damages with victims are, in principle, not liable for harm caused by non-settling co-infringers.
  • Time bar: The Act does not modify the current time bar period, but provides for an interruption during investigations or proceedings of a Competition law Authority and settlement procedures.
  • Voluntary damage payment and fines: The Act provides that a voluntary payment to victims can be taken into account by the BCA in setting the amount of the fine.

While the Belgian Act stays mainly in line with the European Damages Directive, there are some noteworthy choices and other modifications, such as the time bar period, which has not been modified, the extension of the collective damages procedure to EU infringements, the impact of voluntary payment on potential fines from the BCA, the fact that no punitive damages have been introduced and the fact that the definition of cartel and the explanation in Parliament clarifies that this also covers horizontal cartels with a vertical aspect such as hub and spoke cartels. 

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

  1. Google gets a record EUR 2.42 billion antitrust fine for its shopping service
  2. Recent European Commission merger decisions signal an increased focus on innovation
  3. ACM fines Dutch rail operator (NS) for an alleged abuse of dominance

Team

Related news

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

28.01.2019 LU law
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg implements the Register of Beneficial Owners Law

Articles - The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has fulfilled its European obligations in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism by transposing Directive 2015/849 of 20 May 2015 (also known as the 4th EU AML Directive) into national law with the brand new Law of 13 January 2019 (the RBE Law). Below is an overview of the important disclosure obligations that will soon apply to a wide range of Luxembourg entities.

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