umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
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

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more