Short Reads

Dutch Appeal Court drastically reduces cartel fine Dutch construction company

Dutch Appeal Court drastically reduces cartel fine Dutch construction

Dutch Appeal Court drastically reduces cartel fine Dutch construction company

01.06.2018 NL law

On 8 May 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) ruled on appeal on the proportionality of the amount of a fine imposed by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). The CBb found that the fine was disproportionate and reduced the fine by more than 80% from EUR 2.5 million to EUR 463.000.

In this case, the ACM initially imposed a fine of EUR 3 million on a Dutch construction company for engaging in cover pricing practices in 2010. Cover pricing consists of sharing sensitive bidding information between bidders to enable one of the bidders to submit an offer that would be considered as serious by the organizing entity, but that at the same time would still be less attractive than the bid of the other firm. By submitting a serious but non-winning bid rather than no bid at all, the bidder hopes to increase the probability that it will be invited for any future tenders organized by the same entity.

The ACM had qualified the cover pricing practices as a restriction of competition by object. It set the fine at EUR 3 million because it was of the opinion that a previous fine imposed on the same company of EUR 1.5 million– for a breach of competition law in a separate case – had apparently not prevented recidivism.  Therefore, it decided to bypass the applicable clause in the ACM's fining code that allowed the "fine basis" – which is based on the affected turnover and "the seriousness of the violation" - to be redoubled in case of recidivism, since applying that clause would have amounted to a fine of approximately EUR 540.000. Instead it set the fine at double the EUR 1.5 million fine of the unrelated case.

After the District Court of Rotterdam had reduced the fine to EUR 2.5 million in 2016, the company lodged a further appeal to the CBb.

The CBb agreed with the construction company that the amount of the fine was still disproportionate. According to the CBb, the ACM had failed to provide a convincing explanation why the fine should be higher than the fine in the previous case given that the CBb deemed the recent infringement less serious than the infringement in the previous case. For that reason, the CBb concluded that the increase of the fine for recidivism as set out in the fining code would have been sufficient. The CBb recalculated the fine in accordance with the applicable fining code and set the fine at EUR 463.000.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger
European Commission must reassess Lufthansa's request to waive merger commitments
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case
Belgian Supreme Court confirms illegality of dawn raids due to the lack of a warrant

Team

Related news

13.09.2018 NL law
FlixBus-uitspraak over de strijd van nieuwe spelers op de openbaar vervoermarkt tegen het bestaande concessiemodel met exclusieve rechten.

Short Reads - Het verrichten van openbaar vervoer geschiedt op basis van een concessie. Een concessie is het recht om met uitsluiting van anderen openbaar vervoer te verrichten in een bepaald gebied gedurende een bepaald tijdvak, aldus artikel 1 van de Wet personenvervoer 2000 (hierna: de 'Wp 2000'). 

Read more

01.08.2018 BE law
Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Short Reads - On 7 June 2018, the Belgian Court of Cassation, ruled that a decision of the Pharmacists Association Appeals Council (Appeals Council) prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords to offer over-the-counter (OTC) products violated Belgian competition law because the Appeals Council did not sufficiently justify why such a prohibition was necessary for health reasons. The Appeals Council must now issue a new decision.

Read more

01.08.2018 NL law
Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Short Reads - On 20 July 2018, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland published another interim judgment in the ongoing proceedings between TenneT, the grid operator in the Netherlands, and ABB in relation to the gas insulated switchgear (GIS) infringement. After the Dutch Supreme Court had confirmed in a judgment of 8 July 2016 [see our August 2016 Newsletter] that the passing-on defence is available under Dutch law, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland decided to appoint independent economic experts to provide input on the calculation of overcharge and the existence of pass-on.

Read more

01.08.2018 NL law
European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case

Short Reads - On 25 July 2018, the European Court of Justice rejected Orange Polska's appeal relating to a European Commission decision finding an abuse of dominance on the Polish wholesale broadband market. The judgment clarifies that the Commission does not have to take into account the actual or likely effects of an infringement when determining the amount of the fine.

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