Short Reads

CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

05.03.2020 NL law

Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Similarly, whistleblowers may appeal cartel decisions, even if they were granted immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. Irrespective of a fortuitous outcome of the administrative procedure, companies should therefore maintain a view of the bigger picture when deciding whether to appeal.

According to Dutch law, appellants must have a legitimate interest in bringing a procedure in order to be admissible in court. The case at hand confirms that such a legitimate interest also exists if the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) does not impose a fine (or imposes a zero euro fine), but does hold the company liable for a cartel infringement.

In 2017, the ACM imposed fines on three companies and two de facto managers for a price fixing agreement. During the objection procedure, a parent company’s fine was withdrawn due to inability to pay, but its liability for the cartel infringement remained intact.

On appeal, the parent company argued that – despite the fortuitous outcome of no fine – it still had an interest in bringing proceedings against the cartel decision. The Rotterdam District Court found that there was no such interest, given the lack of negative legal consequences for the parent company. However, on further appeal, the CBb agreed with the parent company’s arguments that it did have an interest, particularly because of the potential consequences of the decision holding it liable for the cartel infringement, such as exclusion from future tenders, follow-on damages claims, and a fine increase in case of recidivism. In line with its earlier ruling relating to a zero euro fine for a whistleblower (see here and here), the CBb therefore ruled that the parent company can bring an action against a decision establishing that it has committed a competition law violation, even if no fine is imposed.

The case has now been referred back to the District Court. In addition, the publication of the ACM decision has been suspended until six weeks after the new ruling of the District Court (see here).

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of March 2020. 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