Abstract
Subject(s):
Bid rigging — Information exchange — Immunity — Leniency applications — Reduction in fine — National Competition Authorities (NCAs) — Distribution and retail
Core Issue(s):
To what extent the first of two firms participating in a bid rigging scheme in the context of a public tender in violation of Article 1 of the Competition Act and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) was entitled to full immunity from fines.
Whether the second of two firms participating in a bid rigging scheme in the context of a public tender in violation of Article 1 of the Competition Act and Article 101 TFEU should qualify for leniency under the Leniency Programme.
To what extent the cartel settlement procedure under European Union rules could apply to a bid rigging case.
How the fee imposed on a firm taking part in collusive tendering should be calculated.
Bid rigging — Information exchange — Immunity — Leniency applications — Reduction in fine — National Competition Authorities (NCAs) — Distribution and retail
Core Issue(s):
To what extent the first of two firms participating in a bid rigging scheme in the context of a public tender in violation of Article 1 of the Competition Act and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) was entitled to full immunity from fines.
Whether the second of two firms participating in a bid rigging scheme in the context of a public tender in violation of Article 1 of the Competition Act and Article 101 TFEU should qualify for leniency under the Leniency Programme.
To what extent the cartel settlement procedure under European Union rules could apply to a bid rigging case.
How the fee imposed on a firm taking part in collusive tendering should be calculated.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Type | Case Report |
| Publisher | Oxford Competition Law |
| Publication status | Published - May 2021 |