Short Reads

No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

05.09.2019 NL law

Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

The principle of equality could affect the whistleblower's qualification as de facto manager and/or the fine level set to be paid if no leniency had been granted. It is therefore good for whistleblowers, even when content with their immunity from fines, to maintain a view of the bigger picture when deciding whether to appeal.

In 2017, the ACM imposed fines on three companies and two de facto managers for price fixing. The ACM considered a fine of EUR 170,000 appropriate for one of the de facto managers but, after the manager had fulfilled all the leniency conditions required for fine immunity, imposed no fine.

On appeal, the de facto manager argued that, even though no fine had been imposed, he could still appeal the ACM's decision. In the decision, the ACM had held him personally liable for the cartel infringement and had set a fine, which he would have had to pay if no leniency had been granted. According to the de facto manager, his interest in appealing the decision followed specifically from the fact that:

  1. he could face a potential fine increase for recidivism if he was to commit a similar infringement at a later stage,
  2. he would still need to pay the EUR 170,000 fine if he failed to fulfil the leniency conditions throughout the proceedings, and
  3. a court could rule that the other de facto manager had not committed an infringement, on grounds similar to those applicable to him.

Contrary to the Rotterdam District Court's findings in first instance, the Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal ruled that the de facto manager did have an interest in bringing legal proceedings, particularly as the principle of equality could, in appeal, result in the court concluding that he was unjustly qualified as a de facto manager of the infringement or unjustly fined for an amount of EUR 170,000.

It is therefore advisable for whistleblowing companies and individuals to keep all consequences in mind when considering whether it is worthwhile to appeal, and not necessarily treat the absence or reduction of a fine as decisive.

 

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

 

Team

Related news

12.05.2020 NL law
Kroniek van het mededingingsrecht

Articles - Wat de gevolgen van de coronacrisis zullen zijn voor de samenleving, de economie en – laat staan – het mededingingsbeleid laat zich op het moment van de totstandkoming van deze kroniek niet voorspellen. Wel stond al vast dat het mededingingsrecht zal worden herijkt op basis van de fundamentele uitdagingen die voortvloeien uit zich ontwikkelende ideeën over het belang van industriepolitiek, klimaatverandering en de positie van tech-ondernemingen en de platforms die zij exploiteren.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
Spreading fast: Dutch and Belgian COVID-19 State-aid approved

Short Reads - Many Member States are taking measures to support the economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The European Commission’s Temporary Framework enables the rapid approval of certain types of State aid. So far, three Dutch State aid schemes and six Belgian schemes were approved, providing the beneficiaries with legal certainty that the aid received is in line with EU State aid law and cannot be challenged at a later stage.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: no shortcut for ‘by object’ antitrust infringements

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice has found there is no shortcut for determining whether particular conduct can be held to have the object to restrict competition. A competition authority will always need to assess carefully whether the conduct reveals "a sufficient degree of harm to competition” before labelling it a ‘by object’ infringement. This is the case where there is sufficiently solid and reliable experience showing that this type of conduct is commonly regarded as being inherently anticompetitive.

Read more

28.04.2020 EU law
Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Short Reads - Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
COVID-19: fast-forwarding competition law

Short Reads - Competition authorities are temporarily ‘green-lighting’ certain collaboration initiatives to safeguard the supply of essential products in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, authorities warn against using the current exceptional circumstances to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, excessive pricing, refusals to deal or opportunistic takeovers. 

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