Short Reads

Fine liability in antitrust cases is closely scrutinised by Dutch courts

Fine liability in antitrust cases is closely scrutinised by Dutch cou

Fine liability in antitrust cases is closely scrutinised by Dutch courts

04.04.2019 NL law

A parent company can be held liable for a subsidiary's anti-competitive conduct if the parent has exercised decisive influence over the subsidiary, because the two are then considered a single undertaking. This is why the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) recently found that the ACM cannot simply rely on managing partners' civil liability to determine fine liability for a limited partnership's anti-competitive conduct.

However, the ACM can find an investment firm liable for its portfolio company's conduct based on the organisational, legal and economic links between them. The fact that the ACM fined the investment company individually, rather than jointly with the portfolio company, was no reason for the CBb to decide differently. When faced with an antitrust fine, companies are well-advised to double-check the facts used by the competition authority to reach its conclusion on 'decisive influence'.

On 19 March 2019 the CBb issued two rulings regarding the attribution of fines relating to an alleged cartel on the Dutch market between Dutch, Belgian and German milling companies. The ACM originally fined 15 milling companies for approximately EUR 82 million for a cartel infringement,

In the first case, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to sufficiently substantiate its imposition of fines on a limited partnership, established under German law (a ''KG''), as well as on the KG's two managing partners, for an alleged cartel infringement committed by the KG. The ACM found that because of its nature, the KG consisted of its two managing partners, and therefore, the infringement could also be attributed to the two individuals, simply in view of their capacity as managing partner of the infringing entity.

The CBb ruled that the ACM's reasoning was insufficient. In view of personal responsibility when applying punitive sanctions, the ACM cannot take the civil liability regime for managing partners as a starting point. As the two managing partners were not the only natural persons involved, the ACM should have assessed whether these two partners exercised decisive influence over the KG. This question was contested by the managing partners, and this should have given the ACM reason to further assess whether or not the managing partners had in fact exercised decisive influence over the KG. The CBb therefore ordered the ACM to remedy its omission, either by substantiating the imposition of a fine on the general partners or by annulling the fines it imposed on them.

In the second case, the CBb upheld the ACM's decision to impose a fine on an investment firm for a cartel infringement committed by its portfolio company. Having examined the economic, organisational and financial links between the portfolio company and the investment firm, the CBb agreed with the ACM that the investment firm had decisive influence over the portfolio company's conduct.

The investment firm's fine was imposed separately, in addition to the fine already imposed on the portfolio company for the same conduct. The other parent companies involved in the alleged infringement had, however, been fined jointly and severally with their subsidiaries. The CBb ruled that this did not go against the principle of equal treatment, because it had no longer been possible for the ACM to impose a joint fine on the portfolio company and the investment firm. It was only after objections by the other parent companies that the ACM had issued a supplementary statement of objections to the investment firm. As a result, it was no longer possible for the ACM to impose a joint and several fine on the investment firm and its portfolio company.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring