Short Reads

The ACM has to pay: moral damages awarded to real estate traders

The ACM has to pay: moral damages awarded to real estate traders

The ACM has to pay: moral damages awarded to real estate traders

03.10.2019 NL law

The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) needs to cough up a total of EUR 120,000 in moral damages to three real estate traders. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal (CBb) agreed with the real estate traders that the annulment of the ACM's cartel decisions against them was insufficient compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of the length of the procedure and the press coverage of their cases.

Even though the ACM is no stranger to paying up, with a record payment of EUR 4.5 million for a wrongfully blocked bakery merger in 2017, having to only pay moral damages seems exceptional. It is, however, another factor companies and individuals can take into account when considering their actions if faced with an annulled ACM decision.

The ACM's causality defence

The ACM had argued that all claims should be dismissed because, despite the CBb's annulment of its fining decisions in 2017, the ACM could legitimately have adopted valid infringement decisions which would then, ex hypothesi, have caused the same alleged damage. As a result, there was no causal link between the annulled decisions and the alleged damage. The CBb ruled, however, that ACM had not furnished sufficient evidence to support its statement that it could legitimately have adopted a fining decision vis-à-vis the traders.

 The traders' claims for lost profits

The traders argued they should be compensated for lost profits. The infringement decisions against them – which were eventually ruled to be unlawful – had made it more difficult and costly for them to attract funding. This was mainly caused by their bank revoking its loan facility when it discovered they were under investigation by the ACM. As a result, the traders were no longer able to carry out their business. However, the CBb made short shrift of this argument, ruling that the bank's decision could not be attributed to the ACM, as the bank's reason for revoking the loan facility was not dependent on the validity of the annulled infringement decision. 

The trader's claim for moral damages

The traders also argued that the press coverage of their cases – which was allegedly partly instigated by the ACM – had damaged their reputation. The CBb agreed. It ruled that the mere fact that the infringement decision was annulled was, given the circumstances of the case and the length of the proceedings, an insufficient remedy. It therefore ordered the ACM to pay each trader EUR 40,000 in moral damages. The traders' argument that the investigation had also harmed their health was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The judgment shows that companies or individuals who have been confronted with an unlawful fine may have a claim for moral damages. However, a decisive factor in this case may have been that the investigated traders carried out their businesses in a personal capacity. Large companies may have a harder time substantiating a claim for moral damages in similar circumstances. Even so, it is another factor to reckon with if faced with an annulled ACM decision.

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

 

Team

Related news

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

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