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

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

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