Short Reads

Higher fines ahead under Belgium's new competition act

Higher fines ahead under Belgium's new competition act

Higher fines ahead under Belgium's new competition act

04.07.2019 BE law

Companies beware: on 3 June 2019, a new competition act entered into force in Belgium. The new act introduces a number of modifications to procedure and sanctions, aimed at improving enforcement of competition laws as well as the functioning of competition authorities.

These changes include an increased fining cap, now based on 10% of a company's worldwide turnover, replacing the previous cap which considered only Belgian turnover. In addition, the new act forces companies to substantiate their leniency request with evidence. As a result of these changes, competition law infringements in Belgium may soon result in even more serious financial consequences – all the more reason for companies to double-check whether their existing compliance programmes will be sufficiently effective to detect potential competition law infringements under the new regime.

The most significant modifications in terms of procedure and sanctions in the new competition act include the following:

  • the maximum fine has been increased from 10% of Belgian turnover to 10% of worldwide consolidated turnover
  • clarification of restrictive practices committed by natural persons acting on behalf of companies
  • authorisations for dawn raids will now be the exclusive competence of the investigating judge in Brussels
  • streamlining of the settlement procedure
  • new rules concerning qualification of documents as confidential, both at the level of the competition authorities and at the level of the court of appeal
  • new rules on the composition of the procedural file and removal of documents unrelated to the file
  • two months to respond to the statement of objections, replacing the previous limit of one month
  • in a procedure regarding restrictive practices, the undertakings concerned can offer remedies until three days after the first day of the hearing (which will also lead to an extension of the decisionmaking period)
  • the mere recognition of an infringement is sufficient for a natural person to obtain immunity, but is not sufficient for a company to obtain leniency. Companies will have to submit evidence
  • a request of provisional measures is a “one shot”. The applicant can only submit additional written observations in answer to the submissions of the defendant if the President of the college allows (in which case the defendant has a final possibility to react)
  • provisional measures not mentioned in the request, but envisaged by the competition college, must now be submitted to the undertakings concerned for comments
  • in merger control procedures, parties can submit undertakings at the level of the college (i.e. even after the investigation phase) and can modify the concentration until the end of the oral hearing

Alongside the new act, additional modifications will also be needed to implement the ECN+ Directive of 11 December 2018.

The fundamental material and institutional provisions of the current act remain unaltered. Therefore, Belgium will maintain its prohibition on restrictive practices and abuse of dominant position, as well as merger control, just as before. However, the Belgian Parliament introduced a new kind of restrictive practice - the prohibition on abuse of economic dependence - in a separate act, which is also discussed in this newsletter: please see here.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 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