The BCA’s investigation revealed that these companies distorted competition in the fire protection services market through bid rigging, violating both Belgian and European competition laws. The implicated companies have acknowledged their misconduct and accepted the settlement terms proposed by the BCA’s Investigation and Prosecution Service.
BCA Prosecutor General Damien Gerard highlighted the gravity of the situation, stating, “The prosecution of bid rigging practices is a top priority for the BCA. These are among the most serious infringements of the competition rules. In the present case, the practices are particularly regrettable in view of their duration and the essential nature of the products in question for ensuring public safety, as well as the identity of the victims, which include schools, municipalities, assistance centers, social housing and public transport companies. What is positive is that the companies involved have recognized the seriousness of the facts and the ANSUL/SOMATI FIE group has taken the initiative of proposing a system of compensation for the victims.”
The cartel’s operation involved ANSUL, SOMATI FIE, and SICLI dividing public procurement contracts among themselves. This was achieved by refraining from bidding against each other or by submitting intentionally high bids, ensuring the predetermined company would win the contract.
In response to these violations, the BCA imposed a fine of €2.2 million on the SICLI fire protection group. Due to their cooperation and being the first to report the malpractice under the leniency program, the ANSUL/SOMATI FIE group was granted immunity from fines. SICLI’s cooperation also resulted in a 50% reduction in their fine. Additionally, the BCA acknowledged the ANSUL/SOMATI FIE group’s commitment to compensating affected customers under predefined terms and conditions.
Six individuals involved in the scheme applied for and were granted immunity from prosecution.
Source: Belgian Competition
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand