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

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

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

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

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