Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
Casino Siteleri
Kayseri escort
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
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 During the objection procedure, a parent company’s fine was withdrawn due to inability to pay, but its liability for the cartel infringement remained intact.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:


Related news

03.12.2020 NL law
The next 5 years: European Commission launches New Consumer Agenda

Short Reads - Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission is already looking ahead to set its consumer protection priorities for the next five years. Key points in the New Consumer Agenda include equipping consumers with better information on product sustainability, digital transformation, effective enforcement, safety concerning products ‘made in China’ and protecting particularly vulnerable consumers such as children, older people or those with disabilities. The New Consumer Agenda is a follow-up to the 2018 New Deal for Consumers.

Read more

11.11.2020 EU law
Innovatie en staatssteun. Het CBb leidt de weg bij de belangrijke definities industrieel onderzoek en experimentele ontwikkeling

Short Reads - Het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (“CBb”) heeft op 6 oktober 2020 in een subsidiegeschil nadere invulling gegeven aan het onderscheid tussen “industrieel onderzoek” en “experimentele ontwikkeling”. Dit onderscheid staat centraal in nationale subsidieregelingen en Europese staatssteunregels die overheidsinvesteringen in onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie (“O&O&I”) mogelijk moeten maken.

Read more

03.12.2020 NL law
On the right track? GC sends mixed messages with Lithuanian Railways

Short Reads - The essential facilities doctrine imposes on holders of indispensable facilities a duty to deal with their competitors. While a railway track may seem essential, a track’s removal does not fall under this doctrine if carried out by a monopolist manager of a state-developed facility bearing a statutory obligation to grant third parties access to its facilities. According to the General Court, the Commission was therefore correct to use the general framework for abuse of a dominant position to assess the Lithuanian railway operator’s removal of a railway track.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Belgian prohibition on abuse of economic dependence comes into force and new fining guidelines

Short Reads - In 2019, Belgium introduced legislation banning abuse in relationships between companies where there is no dominant position, but rather a position of economic dependence. The act entered into force on 22 August 2020. This category of restrictive practice applies alongside the existing prohibitions on cartels and abuse of a dominant position. It opens up new opportunities but also new threats for companies that are not in a dominant position.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures

Short Reads - Companies beware: the turnover of a joint venture buying a target is not necessarily decisive for determining whether the EU merger thresholds are met. The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s 2017 decision prohibiting the joint acquisition of Cemex’s Hungarian and Croatian subsidiaries by cement companies HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their full-function joint venture (JV).

Read more