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

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

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

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

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