Short Reads

Low prices, high fines: Commission's creative purchase cartel fine upheld

Low prices, high fines: Commission's creative purchase cartel fine up

Low prices, high fines: Commission's creative purchase cartel fine upheld

06.06.2019 NL law

Companies should take note that the European Commission will deviate from its own general fining methodology if a particular case calls for it. The General Court recently upheld the Commission's novel fining approach in regard of a purchase cartel.

The Commission's fining guidelines use the amount of sales affected by the cartel as a basis to set a fine with sufficient deterrent effect. This works when dealing with cartels aiming to increase sales prices: the more successful the sales cartel, the higher the value of sales and therefore the fine amount. However, this does not apply to cartels intended to reduce purchase prices: the more successful a purchase cartel, the lower the amount of the value of purchases and thus the lower the fine level. The General Court agreed with the Commission that to avoid under-deterrence, a 10% increase in the imposed fine was justified. This ruling shows that the Commission's fining methodology is not set in stone; adjustments can be made.

The European Commission fined three recycling companies EUR 68 million for fixing prices for purchasing scrap automotive batteries in February 2017. Unlike more 'conventional' price-fixing cartels - where companies collude to increase their sales prices - the recycling companies colluded to reduce the purchase price paid to scrap dealers and collectors for used car batteries. As the cartel affected purchases instead of sales, the Commission departed from its general fining methodology and took account of the value of the purchases made by each of the recycling companies to determine the fine level. However, since purchases are normally lower than sales in value terms, the Commission, under point 37 of its fining guidelines, applied a 10% increase of the amount of the fine to ensure sufficient deterrent effect aimed not only at the recycling companies but also at all other companies engaging in purchase cartels.

On appeal, one recycling company argued that the Commission had wrongly applied point 37 of the fining guidelines to increase the fines by 10%. The General Court first recalled that the Commission may, on the basis of point 37, depart from the general methodology of its fining guidelines, as long as it sufficiently states the reasons why. The General Court considered that the Commission had adequately done so in this case; it had explained that, because there were no sales values available, it had used the value of purchases to set the fine level, but that this constituted an imperfect basis for ensuring that the fine acted as a sufficiently strong deterrent, and therefore applied a 10% increase to ensure this.

Companies should keep in mind that the Commission's fining guidelines are not set in stone. Adjustments can and will be made if a particular case calls for it - although the Commission will always need to substantiate its reasons for departing from its own fining guidelines.

 

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

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring