Short Reads

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing

01.11.2017 EU law

On 12 October 2017, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) ruled on appeal on the practice of "cover pricing" in a tender context. The practice was found to constitute a restriction of competition by object.

In this case, sensitive bidding information was sent from one bidder to the other, in order to enable the latter firm to submit an offer that would be considered as serious by the organizing entity, but that at the same time would be less attractive than the bid of the former firm. This approach is often referred to as cover pricing. By submitting a serious but non-winning bid rather than no bid at all, a firm hopes to increase the probability that it will be invited for any future tenders organized by the same entity.

The parties argued on appeal that cover pricing did not actually influence the competitive process as, in essence, the counterfactual world would not have entailed another competitive bid either. However, according to the CBb, cover pricing reduces the strategic risk for both the interested as well as the non-interested bidder (i.e. the bidder submitting the cover price) and results in an distorted image of the market for the procurer. Especially when the number of bidders is small, cover pricing might also cause an increase in prices, as the firm enabling another bidder to submit a cover price knows that not latter does not truly compete for the project. The CBb therefore found that cover pricing should be qualified as a conduct that by its object distorts competition.

At the same time, the CBb decided that cover pricing is a less serious infringement than bid rigging. Therefore, the CBb decided to reduce fines in this case.

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

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  4. European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon
  5. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

02.07.2018 EU law
General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

Short Reads - On 20 June 2018, the General Court rendered its judgment in two connected appeals submitted by České dráhy, the Czech Railways Operator, challenging two dawn raid decisions by the European Commission. Based on arguments concerning the scope of the investigation, the Court annulled in part the first dawn raid decision and fully upheld the second dawn raid decision.

Read more

29.06.2018 EU law
Un dossier de soumission imparfait peut-il être rectifié par le paiement d’une amende ?

Articles - Dans l’arrêt du 28 février 2018, la Cour de justice donne son avis sur la possibilité pour un soumissionnaire de rectifier, pendant la phase de sélection et moyennant paiement d’une amende, son dossier de soumission imparfait par un ajout et/ou commentaire. La Cour précise que cette mesure n’est, en principe, valable que si la nature de l’irrégularité constatée permet une rectification ultérieure et que le montant de l’amende est proportionnel à l’importance de l’irrégularité constatée. 

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