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

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

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

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