Effectiveness of Corporate Fines in EU Competition Law Sample

Introduction: Effectiveness of Corporate Fines in EU Competition Law

Competition law pertains to the intervention in the marketplace in cases of market failure, which arises from an inefficient allocation of commodities and services resulting in an imbalance in a free market. Therefore, the primary goal of EU competition law is to foster a robust internal market that benefits EU individuals, enterprises, and society as a whole. Monopoly, cartels, and mergers are the primary focal points for competition law systems. The underlying concern in all three cases is the potential for anti-competitive consequences in markets dominated by a single entity or experiencing a growing concentration of market power.

Effectiveness of Corporate Fines

Competition law is enforced through public and private enforcement, while according to the question, we will look at the public enforcement of the EU competition law. Public Enforcement concerns that antitrust rules are enforced by state authorities, as under EU competition law, it has an administrative system that imposes fines on firms that violate the competition law. Thus, the European Commission plays an important central role in the enforcement of EU competition law with the assistance of the National Competition Authorities (NCAs) whereby, the commission has the powers to enforce Articles 101 and 102, as conferred by Regulation 1/2003. While Article 102 forbids companies holding a dominant position in a particular market from abusing that position, Article 101 forbids agreements between two or more independent market operators that limit competition.

There are two important EU courts in EU competition law: the General Court (GC), where commission decisions may be appealed to for review, and the Court of Justice (CoJ) for a subsequent appeal on a point of law. Art. 101 and Art. 102 could only be enforced by the commission under the centralized system of EU competition law that existed prior to 2004. The Commission was given the authority to make additional decisions by Regulation 17, which established the framework for the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. It also included general rules for hearings, investigation procedures, and the Commission's conduct of infringement proceedings. Although helpful at first, this system eventually became very laborious to administer. The EU competition law will be enforced by the NCAs as a system of decentralized enforcement under Regulation 1/2003, as the commission was no longer able to do so effectively after 2004.

Basically, the most common type of remedy is a fine and it will be imposed by Commission when there is an infringement of Article 101 and 102 TFEU. According to Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003, the European Commission has the authority to impose fines of up to 10% of the undertaking s total turnover in the preceding year. Hence, continued infringements may result in periodic penalty payments under Article 24 and mostly, fines are imposed for price-fixing agreements and agreements that divide up the internal market in the EU. Hence, the Commission exercises broad discretion when imposing fines, generally considering factors such as the gravity of the behaviour, its duration, the market size, and the likely deterrent effect of a fine.

Comparative Analysis

Based on Article 23, the Commission has imposed the highest corporate fines in Europe, exceeding EUR 1 billion in recent cases. The legal basis for this lies in TFEU Art 103(2), giving the EU institutions the authority to adopt rules ‘to ensure compliance with the prohibitions laid down in the Article 101(1) and Article 102. Hence, fines serve to induce stricter compliance by undertakings and to act as a specific or general deterrent. Corporate fines ‘are intended to punish anticompetitive behaviour on the part of undertakings and to deter them from engaging in such conduct while we can see that Art 23 of regulation (EC) No 1/2003 give the authority to European Commission to impose fines on undertakings, but not on individuals.

Thus, EU system only relying on financial sanctions. Fines serve as deterrence while it may not be sufficient to address all aspects of violations whereas in US, the Department of Justice carries out criminal enforcement, which imposes financial and imprisonment penalty on individuals. However, some countries have begun sanctioning criminal penalties for specific instances of anti-competitive behaviour. Imprisonment penalties would be better for imposing to the individual.

Thus, fines imposed on companies may not have deterrent effect, as they do not deal with individuals, but allow them to hide behind companies so if corporate sanctions alone without a combination with sanctions against individuals were expected to become ‘subject to increasing criticism and diminishing legitimacy . US system the financial penalties is fixed to be one hundred million US dollars for a corporation and one million US dollars for an individual. According to criminal sections, anticompetitive conduct is criminal, individuals may be sentenced to prison this may be

The effectiveness of fines depends on their magnitude, and some contend that fines imposed on large corporations may not be proportional to their financial capacities. EU system may need to exploring alternative sanctions and enhancing enforcement mechanisms. It could impose custodial penalties.

Further, despite the EU imposing civil sanction and the US imposing criminal sanctions, the methodology for fining organization is similar. Both begin by estimating the gains from misconduct and then add an additional amount based on the case s circumstances to penalize the wrongdoing. Whether the additional assessment of restitution in the U.S is redundant, given the stated reason for imposing a criminal fine, remain an open question.

Get Extra 10% OFF on your WhatsApp order!

use my discount

They may not be sufficient to address all aspects of antitrust violations. The effectiveness of fines depends on their magnitude, and some contend that fines imposed on large corporations may not be proportional to their financial capacities. As a result, the Commission must take into account both the severity and the length of the infringement when calculating the fine (Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003). Furthermore, according to Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003, the fine cannot be greater than 10% of the total turnover the undertaking generated in the business year prior to the decision.

Fines for breaking EU Competition Law

The European Commission's stance on violations of competition law is essentially preventive. This is demonstrated by the number of guidelines it has released to assist businesses in adhering to competition laws. On the other hand, the Commission levies fines for companies that break these laws, which have two purposes: to punish and deter.

There is a clear reason for this method. If allowed to continue unchecked, breaking competition laws can be extremely profitable for businesses. Such illicit activities are motivated by this desire for profit. An extreme example of this can be found in the analysis of different cartels by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which discovered that the median price increases resulting from these illicit agreements varied from 15 to 20%, and in certain instances, they even exceeded 50%. Over an extended period of time, a cartel may reap significant financial gains from these artificially elevated prices.

The Commission's fine policy is set up to offset these incentives in light of this . Fines are computed as a way to recover and offset the wrongful profits made from such activities, in addition to responding to the infringement itself. At this point, the Commission's fine policy's guiding principles become crucial. The policy acknowledges that different violations affect the economy in different ways. Higher value sales breaches or breaches that last longer are deemed to be more damaging than smaller or shorter breaches. As a result, fines are adjusted appropriately. The European Commission has a flexible policy regarding fines for violations of competition law, allowing for modifications in response to particular situations. For example, if a business commits the same offense repeatedly, the fines might be raised to emphasize the need for a more potent deterrent against ongoing anti-competitive behavior. On the other hand, under some circumstances, such as when the company's involvement in the violation was minimal or when it followed official instructions, fines may be lowered.

The Commission applies an extra deterrent in cartel cases that is commonly referred to as a "entry-fee." With a percentage ranging from 15 to 25 percent of the company's yearly sales, this surcharge specifically targets transient cartels

. This extra cost acts as a powerful deterrent to even trying to establish a cartel.

Under exceptional circumstances where imposing the standard fine would seriously jeopardize a company's ability to make money, the Commission may also think about lowering fines. In such circumstances, the business must back up its claims with unambiguous and factual proof. The Commission has conducted a comprehensive analysis in these scenarios with the aim of being as objective and quantifiable as possible. This ensures that different companies receive equal treatment while upholding the overarching goal of deterrence.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) serves as the legal basis for these practices. The TFEU's Articles 101 and 102 forbid a number of anti-competitive practices, and Article 103 gives the European Council the authority to set up an enforcement framework that includes the application of fines. The Commission is authorized by Council Regulation 1/2003, which is based on Article 103 TFEU, to enforce these regulations and penalize companies that violate them. According to this regulation, the maximum amount of fines is 10% of the company's turnover, and they should be commensurate with the gravity and length of the infraction. The Commission's dedication to just enforcement is reflected in this structure, which guarantees that fines are severe enough to deter future violations.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held in 1991 that the right to own property is unaffected by having to pay a levy. In contrast to this ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has acknowledged in two other cases one of which was decided more recently than the 1991 ruling that payment obligations do, in fact, affect the right to property.

In relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), this position is consistent with the legal precedent of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). According to the European Court of Human Rights' interpretation of this article, it acknowledges that a state action that primarily attempts to regulate property use for the public interest or to secure tax or other payments is interference with property rights. In particular, the European Court of Human Rights has considered a levy to be an issue of property protection because it requires the denial of a specific sum of money. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that taxing a business violates its right to the "peaceful enjoyment of its possessions," as specified in Protocol No. 1's Article 1. This is because such taxes essentially deprive the business of the money it is required to pay.

The effectiveness of the EU antitrust fining system suffers from its exclusive focus on undertakings

While necessary, corporate fines are insufficient on their own to guarantee the efficient implementation of antitrust laws. Without corporate penalties, businesses have no incentive to deter employees from breaking the law and may even benefit from encouraging misbehavior of this kind. The possibility of facing corporate penalties serves as a trigger, pushing businesses to actively monitor, detect, and stop their workers from breaking antitrust laws. To achieve this, corporations can implement a variety of strategies and policies. Initially, before employing or promoting someone, businesses can carefully review their compliance history. Second, businesses can cultivate a culture where following antitrust laws is seen as absolutely essential. Finally, they can monitor employee behavior closely and discipline those who break the law.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits the introduction of imprisonment and other criminal sanctions, such as fines and director disqualification orders with a criminal nature, at the EU level. The EU is authorized by Article 83(2) of the TFEU to enact substantive criminal law measures in order to guarantee the efficient execution of EU policies in areas that have undergone harmonization. Nonetheless, this clause expressly permits the application of directives, ostensibly ruling out the prospect of making EU competition law illegal. A change to the TFEU would be necessary to enact antitrust law criminalization within the EU. Nevertheless, the EU might use a directive to force its member states to impose criminal penalties for those who break Articles 101 and/or 102 of the TFEU at the national level.

Recommendations

Offering protection from liability for future damages claims to recipients of leniency could encourage companies to seek leniency. Wils contended that granting immunity or any other reduction in liability was not necessary and that the appeal of leniency could be increased by merely raising the fines for which applicants receive immunity. But increasing already high antitrust fines might not be the best idea because it would result in undue deterrence. Wils further argued that it would be unfair to grant immunity or lessen liability in subsequent damage claims. This argument seems to ignore the fact that the leniency program as a whole is inherently unfair.

A different strategy would be to lessen the fines imposed on businesses in order to account for the damages they have already paid to injured parties. This cut would incentivize companies to make amends for the harm they have caused and promote more cooperation with the Commission than is required of them.

This strategy has been put into practice by the Commission, which has twice reduced fines in order to take the victims' compensation into account. The Commission did this primarily to encourage businesses to compensate third parties, rather than to address the problem of accruing liabilities. In other instances, though, the Commission did not take this into account when deciding how much to fine someone. Notably, the General Court seems to concur that the Commission is under no duty to take this into account when determining fines.

Conclusion

In conclusion, EU competition law is essential to maintaining an equitable and competitive market inside the EU. By addressing problems like monopolies, cartels, and mergers that might have anti-competitive effects, it aims to correct market imperfections and preserve equilibrium in a free market. The public enforcement of EU competition law, which imposes administrative fines on violators, is the primary means of ensuring its effectiveness.

In order to enforce EU competition law the European Commission works with National Competition Authorities (NCAs) to penalize businesses that break the law especially in regards to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). These penalties have two purposes to punish and to deter. They are intended to prevent anti-competitive behavior from becoming profitable and to serve as a disincentive to prevent it from happening.

Corporate fines are a key component of enforcement but there is constant discussion regarding their adequacy and justice. The effectiveness of fines is called into question by the EU's reliance on financial sanctions, particularly for large corporations. In contrast, those who engage in anti-competitive behavior in the United States face criminal penalties which can include incarceration. Alternative sanctions such as individual custodial penalties have been proposed as a means of improving the efficacy of EU competition law enforcement. To further encourage compliance and cooperation leniency recipients could be granted immunity from liability for subsequent damages or have fines reduced for compensation already paid to harmed parties.

References

Alder J, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Macmillan Education UK 1999)

• Alexander R, ‘Flogging the Wrong: EU Corporate Fines Violate the Fundamental Rights of Shareholders [2020] Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
• Brook O and Eben M, ‘Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003: A Historical and Empirical Account of an Unworkable Compromise [2023] Journal of Antitrust Enforcement
• Dijkstra PU and Seifert J, ‘Cartel Leniency and Settlements: A Joint Perspective (2023) 63 Review of Industrial Organization 239
• Echr.coe.int, ‘Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights Protection of Property (2022) <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Guide_Art_1_Protocol_1_ENG>
• Europa.eu, ‘Competences of the Court of Justice of the European Union | Fact Sheets on the European Union | European Parliament (www.europarl.europa.eu2020) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/12/competences-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union>
• Fines (competition-policy.ec.europa.eu2020) <https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en>
• Special Report the Commission s EU Merger Control and Antitrust Proceedings: A Need to Scale up Market Oversight (2020) <https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR20_24/SR_Competition_policy_EN.pdf>
• europa.eu, ‘Fines (competition-policy.ec.europa.eu2020) <https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/index/fines_en>
• Gov.in, ‘Competition Law Review Committee Ministry of Corporate Affairs Government of India (2019) <https://www.ies.gov.in/pdfs/Report-Competition-CLRC.pdf>
• Juška Ž, ‘The Effectiveness of Antitrust Collective Litigation in the European Union: A Study of the Principle of Full Compensation (2017) 49 IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 63
• Kidwai Nagar, ‘NATIONAL CONFERENCE on ECONOMICS of COMPETITION LAW Competition Commission of India (2020) <https://www.cci.gov.in/images/economicconference/en/papers-presented-in-2020-conference1652335876.pdf> accessed 5 December 2023
• NATIONAL CONFERENCE on ECONOMICS of COMPETITION LAW Competition Commission of India (2020) <https://www.cci.gov.in/images/economicconference/en/papers-presented-in-2020-conference1652335876.pdf>
• Martin KD and others, ‘Monetary Sanctions: Legal Financial Obligations in US Systems of Justice (2018) 1 Annual Review of Criminology 471
• Szczepa?ski M, ‘IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS [2019] EU competition policy <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/642209/EPRS_IDA(2019)642209_EN.pdf>
• Ullrich H, ‘Private Enforcement of the EU Rules on Competition – Nullity Neglected [2021] IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
• Wurmnest W and Gömann M, ‘Comparing Private Enforcement of EU Competition and Data Protection Law (2022) 13 Journal of European Tort Law 154
• Zelyova N, ‘Restrictive Measures - Sanctions Compliance, Implementation and Judicial Review Challenges in the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (2021) 22 ERA Forum 159