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

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

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