On 11 March 2008, the European Commission imposed fines totalling €32.76 million on ten undertakings for having participated, over various periods between October 1984 and September 2003, in a cartel on the international removal services market in Belgium. The cartel related to the direct or indirect fixing of prices, market sharing and the manipulation of the procedures for the submission of tenders, in particular by issuing false quotes (cover quotes) to customers and through a compensation system for rejected offers.
Five of the companies, together with a number of their parent companies, challenged the decision and requested that the Court annul the decision or reduce the amount of their respective fines.
The General Court rejected the arguments put forward by four of the parties - Team Relocations, Amertranseuro International, Putters International and Ziegler - and their respective fines remain in place.
However, as regards the fifth appellant, Gosselin, the Court considered that the Commission had only conclusively shown that it participated in the infringement for 7 years and 6 months, and not for 10 years and 7 months as found by the Commission. In order to take account of this, the amount of the fine was reduced from €3.28 million to €2.32 million.
A further challenge was lodged by an entity called Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje ('SAP') which the Commission had found to be jointly and severally liable along with Gosselin. SAP is not active on any market for goods or services as it simply owns former family shares that are not negotiable in any market. In upholding SAP's appeal, the Court considered that SAP does not constitute an undertaking for the purposes of competition law, since the Commission had not shown that it involved itself directly or indirectly in Gosselin's management and was therefore not engaged in an economic activity. In addition, even if it was an undertaking, the Commission had erred in imputing Gosselin's liability to SAP as SAP adduced evidence to establish that it did not exert a decisive influence over Gosselin. Consequently, the Court annulled the Commission's decision and SAP's liability for the fine.
The appeal concerns one of the first Commission decisions to deal with an infringement involving bid rigging and the Commission will be relieved that its decision has largely been upheld.
To view Community Week, Issue 526 – 24 June 2011 in full, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
