Neodyum Miknatis
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
canli poker siteleri meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

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

COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

03.09.2020 NL law

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.

Companies should realise that competition authorities are willing to take the impact of the coronavirus outbreak and the resulting short-term liquidity issues into consideration when dealing with cartel fines.

Extended payment terms for ethylene purchasers

In a recent cartel settlement, the European Commission imposed fines totalling EUR 260 million on a number of ethylene purchasers. According to the Commission, the companies coordinated their price strategies to purchase the chemical ethylene at the lowest possible price. These buying cartels are also on the radar of other competition authorities (see our December 2019 newsletter).

Contrary to more ‘conventional’ price-fixing cartels (where companies collude to increase their sales prices), buying cartel participants collude to reduce purchase prices. The Commission therefore used the value of purchases – instead of sales – to calculate the fine level. Similar to its fine calculations in the car battery recycling purchasing cartel, the Commission applied a 10% increase to avoid under-deterrence due to the (presumably) artificially lowered purchase prices (see our June 2019 newsletter).

Interestingly, the ethylene purchasers were granted an additional three months – on top of the usual three – to pay their fines. According to the Commission’s press release, “the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on all sectors and potential short-term liquidity issues of companies” was reason to prolong the due date for the payment of fines; a gesture likely welcomed by companies currently faced with cartel fines that are struggling to keep afloat.

Fine reduction by Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal

The impact of the pandemic was also one of the reasons for the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – to reduce a cartel fine from EUR 1 million to EUR 10,000.

In 2017, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) imposed a fine of EUR 2,789,000 on a subsidiary and its parent company for participating in a cartel. During the objection procedure, the subsidiary’s fine was reduced to EUR 1,935,000, and the parent company’s fine was withdrawn due to inability to pay. On appeal, the Rotterdam District Court concluded that the subsidiary had participated in the cartel but reduced the fine to EUR 1 million on grounds of proportionality. The parent company also appealed the cartel decision because, even though its fine had been withdrawn, its liability for the cartel infringement remained intact (see our March 2020 newsletter). This appeal is still pending.

On further appeal, the subsidiary argued that its immediate danger of bankruptcy meant that the EUR 1 million fine was no longer proportionate. The CBb requested the ACM’s opinion on a proportionate fine level when looking at the subsidiary’s current financial situation. The ACM deemed a fine of EUR 10,000 proportional, taking account of the following exceptional circumstances:

  1. the pending appeal proceedings by the parent company causing the subsidiary’s fine level to remain uncertain for too long;
  2. the subsidiary’s current financial situation and claimed urgency, and
  3. the corona crisis and the resulting consequences for the subsidiary.

As the subsidiary did not contest the fine level, the CBb ruled a fine of EUR 10,000 appropriate and necessary and annulled the Rotterdam District Court’s ruling in so far as it set a fine of EUR 1 million on the subsidiary.

Conclusion

The above developments show the willingness of competition authorities to take account of the corona crisis, at all stages of the cartel procedure. Companies struggling in the current climate should take this willingness to heart when faced with cartel fines.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of September 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

07.01.2021 NL law
(Geo)blockbuster: Canal+ ruling annuls commitment decision

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies seeking to settle in antitrust proceedings: commercially-affected third party complainants are not to be ignored. The Canal+ judgment marks the first time a commitment decision has been successfully challenged since the adoption of Regulation 1/2003. The European Court of Justice annulled the commitment decision on the ground that the Commission failed to take into account the rights of contractual parties affected by the commitments.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Commission evaluates Antitrust Damages Directive: to be continued

Short Reads - On 14 December 2020, the Commission published a report on the implementation of the Antitrust Damages Directive (the Directive). The Commission observes a significant increase in antitrust damages actions since the adoption of the Directive. However, there is insufficient experience with the new Directive to properly evaluate its application. Instead, the Commission provides a concise overview of the implementation of some key aspects of the Directive.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Amsterdam District Court puts a halt to unlimited forum shopping

Short Reads - On 25 November 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the Court) declined jurisdiction over all non-Dutch defendants (the foreign defendants) in proceedings for compensation of damage based partly on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The proceedings were initiated by four public utility companies from the Gulf States (claimants) against both Dutch and foreign defendants.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
ACM study calls for regulation of Big Techs on payment market

Short Reads - The ACM’s market study, published on 1 December 2020, provides an overview of recent and upcoming developments concerning the role of Big Tech companies in both online and offline payment markets in the Netherlands. Although Big Tech companies currently have a relatively limited presence in these markets, the ACM expects significant expansion in the near future given these companies’ ability to leverage existing market power on other (platform) markets.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Do the math: ACM publishes strategy on monitoring use algorithms

Short Reads - The ACM worries that the use of algorithms may lead to the creation of cartels, or nudge consumers towards a purchasing decision that is not in their best interest. Therefore, on 10 December 2020, it published a new policy document (in Dutch) setting out what businesses can expect when the ACM checks their algorithms. On the same day, the ACM also launched a trial with online music library Muziekweb to improve the ACM’s knowledge about the categories of data that are likely to be relevant in such investigations. All signs indicate the ACM’s intention to become more active in this area.

Read more