Short Reads

Belgian Competition Authority fines undertakings for bid-rigging in railway tender

Belgian Competition Authority fines undertakings for bid-rigging in r

Belgian Competition Authority fines undertakings for bid-rigging in railway tender

01.06.2017 NL law

On 2 May 2017, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) imposed a total fine of EUR 1,779,000 on five undertakings active in the sector of electrical switchgear for bid-rigging in relation to a tender issued by Infrabel (Belgian railway infrastructure manager).

The undertakings concerned were ABB (granted full immunity from fines due to its leniency application), Siemens (considered cartel leader), AEG, Schneider, and Sécheron. These undertakings were selected following a public tender issued by Infrabel based on their ‘Best and Final Offer’. A framework agreement was subsequently concluded. Within this framework, Infrabel issued a ‘Request for Quotation’ (RFQ) for each individual order allowing the selected undertakings to submit a specific unitary price. However, the undertakings decided among themselves which undertaking should be awarded the order in question and agreed not to underbid the price put forward. By dividing the orders placed by Infrabel the undertakings participated in a market partitioning cartel. This practice was considered a restriction of competition by object in violation of Article 101 TFEU and its Belgian corollary Article IV.1 of the Code of Economic Law. The undertakings concerned acknowledged the existence of these practices and agreed to a settlement procedure, for which they received an additional 10% discount on the fine.

It is interesting to note that Infrabel’s own conduct was considered a mitigating circumstance for the undertakings concerned, as it was found to ‘have rendered the market excessively transparent’ by communicating strategic information (including revealing details of some of the participants). Furthermore, it is interesting that in calculating the fine it was the effects of the infringement (up to 30 June 2016) that were taken into account and not the duration of the actual infringement (until 1 July 2014).

This settlement decision constitutes the first Belgian bid-rigging case, which ties in perfectly with the 2016 priority policy published by the BCA referring to public procurement, similar to the recent 2017 policy note. The BCA has also just launched an informational campaign on bid-rigging. Although bid-rigging can also be prosecuted by means of Article 314 of the Belgian Penal Code, the case at hand was dealt with by means of competition law.

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

  1. European Commission accepts Amazon's commitments in e-book probe
  2. Recent enforcement action emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural EU merger rules
  3. European Commission publishes final report on e-commerce sector inquiry 
  4. European Commission issues new rules for State aid to ports, airports, culture and the outermost regions
  5. District Court of Amsterdam rules on the validity of the assignments and prescription of CDC's claims for damage in sodium chlorate cartel

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

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