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

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

01.04.2021 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