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

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

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

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - 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'.

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