umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

01.08.2019 NL law

The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

This judgment, handed down on 10 July 2019, is the most recent instalment in the Commission's YIRD investigation, which publicly began with a settlement decision fining several financial institutions for a series of bilateral cartels, whereby the traders of the banks aimed to influence the level of two financial benchmarks through mutual discussions. ICAP was fined for facilitating some of these cartels. Specifically, the Commission found that ICAP had disseminated misleading information and attempted to influence the panel of banks that set the Japanese Yen reference interest rates. The General Court quashed the Commission's decision, partly because it had not sufficiently motivated the methodology used to set ICAP's fine. The Commission appealed the General Court's judgment.

The Court of Justice agreed with the General Court, emphasising that when the Commission departs from the fining methodology established in its Guidelines due to the particularities of the case, the methodology must be disclosed to the parties to safeguard their rights of the defence. For ICAP, the particularity was its role as facilitator. The disclosure must allow the parties to make their views known regarding the factors on which the Commission intends to base its fine on.

Scrutiny of the Commission' s compliance with its duty to state reasons has been high this July. The General Court recently found that, in one of the decisions taken in the retail food packaging cartel, the amount of reduction of a fine for reasons of inability to pay was insufficiently explained. Together with the Court of Justice judgment in ICAP, this may encourage undertakings to bring forward cases where the Commission did not properly explain how it reached the imposed fine level. European courts have certainly shown that, up to the highest level, they are willing to take fining methodology points on board. It is up to companies involved in cartel investigations to appeal on such grounds when the Commission fails to properly explain its methodology when straying from its fining guidelines.

 

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

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more