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

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more