Short Reads

Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax authorities

Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax au

Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax authorities

01.05.2017 NL law

On 27 April 2017, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the appeal of the Pacific Fruit ruling that the European Commission could rely on evidence that it obtained from the Italian tax authority in a cartel case. Importantly, this judgment clarifies the legality of information exchanges between national authorities other than competition authorities and the Commission.

In 2011, the Commission imposed a fine on Pacific Fruit for colluding with Chiquita on banana prices in Southern Europe. In 2015, the General Court (GC) reduced the fine because the company's participation in the cartel had been interrupted [see our July 2015 Newsletter]. The GC, however, confirmed the admissibility of evidence obtained from the Italian tax authority. Pacific Fruit appealed the GC's ruling of 16 June 2015.

Pacific Fruit argued that the Commission was not allowed to rely on the personal notes of a Pacific Fruit employee which the Italian police had obtained during a search at that employee's home as part of a criminal tax investigation.

The Court, however, noted that the lawfulness of the transmission of information obtained in a criminal investigation to the Commission is governed by national law. Subsequently, the Court agreed with the GC's rejection of Pacific Fruit's argument that the Commission can use the documents received from a national authority as evidence only in respect of the matter subject to investigation. According to the Court, there is no general rule "preventing the Commission from using information transmitted by national authorities other than the Member States' competition authorities on the sole ground that that information was obtained for other purposes". The Court also ruled that the Commission was not obliged to inform Pacific Fruit that the Italian tax authority had transmitted the evidence to the Commission immediately.

Finally, the Court also rejected the argument on appeal that the GC had not sufficiently examined the legal and economic context of the relevant conduct for it to be qualified as a restriction "by object". Noting that the facts and evidence had led the GC to agree with the characterization of the behaviour as a price-fixing cartel, the Court held that the analysis of the economic and legal context of the practice may be limited to what is strictly necessary in order to establish the existence of a restriction of competition by object. In the case of price fixing conduct such examination can be very succinct, according to the Court of Justice. As such, the judgment reconfirms the low threshold for finding object infringements when competitors exchange price related information.

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

  1. Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription
  2. European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement in online hotel booking sector
  3. Dusseldorf Court confirms that Asics' online sales restrictions violate competition law
  4. Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements
  5. Commercial Court of Ghent grants compensation to parallel importers for competition law infringement by Honda

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