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

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

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