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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

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
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