Short Reads

Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending Commission decision

Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending commission decis

Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending Commission decision

04.04.2019 NL law

The European Court of Justice recently upheld the General Court's order finding that metal production and recycling company Eco-Bat had submitted its appeal outside of the appeal term. Eco-Bat had relied on the term starting from the date of the European Commission's decision correcting figures for the fine calculation in the initial infringement decision.

The Court of Justice ruled, however, that such an amending decision does not reset the appeal period if the company could have understood the grounds and content from reading the initial decision. If uncertain, companies should therefore take the safer route and calculate the appeal term from the date of the first Commission decision.

On 10 February 2017, the Commission notified Eco-Bat of their infringement decision in the car battery recycling cartel. Almost two months later, an amended decision was issued. This amendment corrected the omission of Eco-Bat's value of purchases, which was used when determining the basic amount of the fine in the initial decision. Eco-Bat appealed the decision within the required two-month term, calculated from the notification of the amending decision.

The General Court found that the value of purchases, as used by the Commission to calculate Eco-Bat's fine, could have been understood by Eco-Bat from reading the initial decision. The clock had therefore started ticking upon notification of the first infringement decision, not upon notification of the amending decision. Eco-Bat's action was therefore dismissed for having been brought out of time.

The Court of Justice, in rejecting Eco-Bat's appeal, took as a starting point the General Court's finding that the correcting element could have been ascertained by Eco-Bat by reading the initial decision. The two-month term starts to run from the time the addressee becomes acquainted with the content and grounds of the decision. Even if the amending decision corrects more than a purely formal omission, the decision does not affect the appeal period if the undertaking could have understood its grounds and content.

This judgment clarifies that the category of re-issued Commission decisions that do not restart the clock for submitting an appeal with the General Court includes more than purely formal changes. Adding figures that could have been understood by the addressee is such a change. If uncertain, companies should take the safe route and calculate the appeal term from the date of the first Commission decision.

 

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

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more