We are pleased to present the forty-seventh instalment of our newsletter, which brings you interesting facts from the world of competition law for the period from April to June 2024. Regular readers will know that this is a purely subjective selection of events that we found interesting this time around.
Lounging on the beach, relaxing between bike rides or enjoying a glass of chilled rosé in the evening calls for interesting reading, and that’s what we hope to provide you, competition law fans. This time we focus on anti-competitive agreements, both horizontal and vertical. You will learn about new trends in antitrust (employees and sports), the old favourite resale price maintenance and particularities (such as monitoring competitors’ prices or restricting cross-border trade).
When a successful leniency applicant challenges a decision
If the company was a successful leniency applicant, it may not be appropriate to bring an action against the relevant decision of the competition authority. This was the case for CERP, a Belgian pharmaceutical distributor, which appealed against a decision to fine it EUR 0.8 million for a cartel agreement on margins. The original fine of EUR 1.6 million was reduced by 50% under a leniency programme. The Belgian Competition Authority responded to CERP’s action by asking the court to annul the reduction of the fine if the action was unsuccessful. This made it too risky for CERP to continue the proceedings and it withdrew the case instead. In this way, the competition authority protects the functionality of its leniency programme.
Forthcoming amendment to the Czech Competition Act
The Czech Competition Authority is also seeking to ensure the effectiveness of its leniency programme. Our regular readers will have noticed that it is also doing this through the forthcoming amendment to the Competition Protection Act (which we have written about in more detail here). In the meantime, the Czech Competition Authority has submitted a text of the amendment act which is reflects the outline we presented to you. A comment procedure took place in June. There were a number of comments and suggestions, so we are curious to see if the draft will be amended.
Robert discussed the need for the amendment and its risks with the Chairman of the Czech Competition Authority in the radio programme “Pro a proti” (Pro and Con) on ČRo Plus.
Employee-related agreements
As you will have noticed from our previous posts, the investigation of anti-competitive agreements involving employees is becoming a trend and a permanent feature of the antitrust authorities’ activities. This spring was no different.
First, it should be noted that in addition to the Czech Competition Authority, the Slovak Competition Authority has also started to focus on employee agreements. In May, it initiated administrative proceedings against a Slovak business association for adopting a code of ethics that included provisions restricting the hiring of employees. We are of course monitoring the case.
Then, in April and May, the Portuguese competition authority continued to pursue an agreement by large technology consultancies not to hire employees and not to make unsolicited offers to employees of competing companies. In the past it has already fined two companies EUR 1.3 million and EUR 2.5 million respectively for this behaviour, and in April it fined another company EUR 278,000. The Portuguese Competition Authority reduced the fines of all these companies in a settlement procedure. The last two cartel members (belonging to the same group) that refused to settle are still under investigation. A Statement of Objections was sent to them in May. A fine, which is likely to be significantly higher, can be expected by the end of the year.
In April, the Lithuanian Regional Administrative Court upheld a EUR 969,060 fine imposed on the Lithuanian Association of Real Estate Agents and its 39 members. The association’s code of ethics contained provisions that prevented estate agents from taking over each other’s brokers.
Read more here.