Short Reads

ECJ in Bpost and Nordzucker: clearer limits for non bis in idem

ECJ in Bpost and Nordzucker: clearer limits for non bis in idem

ECJ in Bpost and Nordzucker: clearer limits for non bis in idem

04.04.2022 EU law

On 22 March 2022, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) offered companies investigated for the same conduct by several authorities clarity on the core principles of the application of the non bis in idem (double jeopardy) protection by its rulings in cases C-151/20, Nordzucker and C-117/20, Bpost.

The ECJ confirmed that, to meet objectives of general interest, a duplication of proceedings may be justified where the proceedings pursue complementary aims. The same conduct can therefore lead to separate sectoral and competition law investigations, but only if the investigations are sufficiently coordinated and are conducted within a proximate timeframe, and the overall penalties match the seriousness of the offences (Bpost). Further, in overlapping antitrust investigations, only one authority should actually rule on a factual element in order to make a finding of an infringement and to establish liability, even if both authorities find it relevant (Nordzucker).

Background

Enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the non bis in idem principle prohibits a duplication both of proceedings and of penalties of a criminal nature for the same conduct and against the same person. In Bpost and Nordzucker, national courts referred questions to the ECJ related to the limits of the application of this principle in competition law cases.

Factually, in Bpost, the company was successively fined by two national authorities for the implementation of a discriminatory rebate system: first by the postal regulator and second by the competition authority. After the first fine was annulled in court, Bpost argued that the second fine breached the non bis in idem principle. In Nordzucker, a telephone conversation during which representatives of two competitors discussed the Austrian sugar market was mentioned both in a fining decision issued in Germany and made the object of subsequent Austrian proceedings covered by a leniency application from Nordzucker. Austrian courts had to assess whether the latter proceedings were barred by the non bis in idem principle.

Non bis in idem principle

In Bpost, the ECJ found that the non bis in idem principle does not preclude the duplication of proceedings for the same conduct under different legislation, sectoral and antitrust, pursuing distinct legitimate objectives. Clear and precise rules must, however, allow companies to predict which conduct is liable to be subject to duplication and whether the two competent authorities will coordinate their investigations. The two proceedings must further have been brought within a proximate timeframe and in a sufficiently coordinated manner. Regarding penalties, the first penalty imposed must be taken into account when setting the second penalty, so that the overall penalty matches the seriousness of the offence.

In Nordzucker, the ECJ found that the non bis in idem principle also does not preclude one Member State’s competition authority from bringing proceedings against conduct affecting its relevant territory, even though the conduct (or part of it) was already mentioned in a previous final decision of another Member State’s competition authority. For the non bis in idem principle to apply, the first authority must have actually ruled on that factual element in order to make out the infringement, rather than just mentioning it in the decision. Further, the principle applies even to proceedings where a fine is not imposed under the leniency programme.

Conclusion

For companies subject to several proceedings, either by parallel Member State competition authorities or by sectoral and competition authorities, the judgments helpfully clarify to what extent duplication of proceedings can occur. The limitation on the overall penalties for sectoral and competition law proceedings, as well as the requirement of temporal proximity and coordination, are especially helpful as the interplay between competition law and sectoral regulation at an EU level grows in importance. It remains to be seen how these judgments will be applied in practice, especially in view of the increase in EU regulation and competition law enforcement of tech companies.

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of April 2022. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Game on for gatekeepers: Digital Markets Act finalised
  2. ACM jumps on gun-jumping bandwagon
  3. The ECN+ Directive implemented in Belgium and introduction of merger filing fees

Team

Related news

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more