Cartel meaning

Competition authorities with jurisdiction in Ireland Competition authorities operating in Ireland, chiefly the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) and, where applicable, the European Commission, possess broad powers to carry out surprise inspections, commonly called ‘dawn raids’. Such raids are a central investigative device for enforcing Irish and EU competition law, particularly in matters involving serious and grave breaches of competition rules like alleged cartel conduct, abuse of dominance, and wage‑fixing arrangements. For companies trading in Ireland, the unannounced arrival of the regulator’s authorised officers at their premises without prior warning can be both highly disruptive and risky. Businesses must be dawn raid‑ready to mitigate disruption and to safeguard their legal entitlements while meeting statutory duties throughout an inspection. This Checklist outlines pragmatic pointers to consider before a dawn raid, including forming a dawn raid response team, alongside key priority steps to take during the on‑site raid, managing legally privileged material, and the follow‑up once the raid has ended. Equipping your organisation with dawn raid readiness know‑how and a...

The European Commission (Commission) examines claims of anti-competitive conduct by businesses affecting more than one EU member state; for instance, cartel price-fixing or assertions that a major multinational has pursued predatory pricing strategies. The successive phases of a Commission antitrust inquiry are illustrated clearly in the flowchart below. For further details, refer to EU investigations—steps in investigations for more information...

Flowchart This Flowchart offers a concise reference to decide if an application for a charging order ought to be filed at the Civil National Business Centre (a CNBC case) or submitted somewhere else (a non-CNBC case). For guidance, consult Practice Note: Charging orders—how and where to apply...

Businesses involved in cartel conduct may come forward as whistleblowers to secure reduced penalties. This means co-operating with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), supplying information on the cartel and those taking part, and setting out full details of the business’s own role in the arrangement...

Antitrust Commission fines Alchem for participating in pharmaceutical cartel The Commission delivered an infringement ruling, levying penalties of €489,000 on Alchem for taking part for over 12 years in a cartel tied to the pharmaceutical ingredient N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (Case AT. 40636)...

Antitrust Court of Justice dismisses appeal relating to the calculation of the fine in the pre-stressing cartel case The Court of Justice has delivered its ruling in Case C-70/23, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission, on an appeal brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-275/20. That judgment had rejected an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010, as later amended on 30 September 2010, in the pre-steel cartel matter (AT.38344) (the Commission’s 2010 decision). In 2010, the Commission imposed fines on Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (WDI) and Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (WDV), holding WDI jointly and severally liable with WDV and Pampus, for their participation in a cartel covering the supply of pre-stressing steel. On 15 July 2015, the General Court dismissed an appeal against the Commission’s 2010 decision (the General Court’s 2015 judgment). While it considered that the Commission had erred in its assessment of arguments on ability to pay, the General Court, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, concluded...

In this issue Criminal procedure and evidence Appeal and judicial review Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Environmental offences Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Criminal procedure and evidence Challenging the decision not to prosecute (R (on the application of Hillary Smith) v DPP) The High Court’s judgment in R (on the application of Hillary Smith) v Director of Public Prosecutions delivers notable guidance on three fronts: the weight to be attached to inquest conclusions when the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) decides whether or not to bring a prosecution; the position the courts are likely to take in judicial review proceedings when scrutinising the reasonableness of the CPS’s application of the two-stage...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-806/19 P and C-883/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment dated 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Appeal brought before the General Court challenging the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2016, which found infringements and levied fines on three banks that did not settle, due to their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, largely confirming the Commission’s conclusion that HSBC Holdings plc took part in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Nonetheless, the General Court set aside the fine imposed on HSBC Holdings plc because the Commission provided ‘insufficient reasons’ for the methodology used to calculate that penalty...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 1 February 2024; it is no longer being actively maintained. See the timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-691/14, which partly upheld an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision imposing a fine on Scania for an alleged cartel in the market for medium-duty trucks (AT.39824). Outcome On 1 February 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety...

Behaviour red flags are situations that should prompt you to probe further. Though they can be hard to spot, many scenarios can indicate the presence of anti-competitive conduct. This awareness tool highlights potential competition law warning signs, indicators, traits or behaviours to be especially alert to at all times. Even a single red flag may suggest anti-competitive conduct. 1 Cartel behaviour Any attempt to fix prices. Any attempt to engage in bid-rigging. ...

Date: [ insert date ] From: [ insert name and job title ] Fair competition serves both businesses and consumers. It highlights where companies must improve and spurs organisations to pursue greater efficiency, foster innovation, lift productivity and, ultimately, become stronger businesses. 1 What is competition law compliance? Competition law exists to protect businesses and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour and to preserve effective competition in the markets in which they operate. Every business must comply, and breaches can bring serious consequences for companies and individuals, including substantial fines, prison sentences, director disqualifications and reputational harm. 2 How does this affect us? For [ insert organisation name ], competition law may arise in three principal contexts: cartel activity; other potentially anti-competitive agreements; abuse of a dominant position. Cartel activity Cartels are the most serious kind of anti-competitive agreement, where two or more businesses agree not to compete with one another...

Question Summary What is competition law? Competition serves both consumers and companies. It highlights areas for improvement and pushes organisations to pursue higher efficiency, greater innovation, stronger productivity and, in the end, to operate as better businesses. Competition law exists to shield businesses and consumers from anti‑competitive conduct and to preserve effective rivalry. Every business must observe competition rules, and breaches can carry severe outcomes for firms and individuals, including directors. Non‑compliance can be costly and damaging at both organisational and personal levels too. Possible penalties include: Substantial fines Prison sentences Director disqualification Damage to reputation When is it an issue? Competition law can arise in three principal settings: cartels — typically horizontal arrangements in which two or more businesses, whether by written agreement or otherwise, decide not to compete with one another. Cartels are the gravest form of anti‑competitive agreement. They cover accords to fix prices, rig bids, cap output, and divide customers or markets. A cartel...