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

24.09.2020 BE law
Stibbe hosts a webinar on dawn raids organised by IBJ/IJE

Seminar - On 24 September 2020, several Stibbe lawyers ​​​​​explain the rights and obligations of companies when confronted with announced or unannounced raids. What do to when, for example, tax authorities, the competition authorities, police services or a bailiff are at your doorstep?

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected Nexans’ appeal in the power cables cartel case. The Commission started the dawn raid at Nexans’ premises, but due to lack of time finished the raid at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The ECJ found that the Commission can copy data and assess its relevance to the investigation at its own premises, while safeguarding companies’ rights of defence.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

Short Reads - As well as granting companies leeway on certain COVID-19 initiated collaborations (see our May 2020 newsletter), the coronavirus outbreak has also led competition authorities to take a more lenient stance towards fine calculations and payments. The European Commission has extended the due date for fine payments by an additional three months in response to potential short-term liquidity issues brought about by the pandemic. Similar reasons led the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal to reduce a EUR 1 million cartel fine to just EUR 10,000.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
The ACM’s Green Deal: achieving sustainability via competition law?

Short Reads - The ACM has issued draft guidelines on the application of competition law to sustainability agreements. Companies entering into agreements that restrict competition but contribute to governmental sustainability objectives – i.e. lower CO2 emissions – may expect more room for collaboration. The proposed framework would allow these types of agreements if their anti-competitive effects are outweighed by their environmental benefits to society as a whole (rather than to in-market consumers only, as under the existing framework).

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more