Austria: Can An Error In Law Protect Against Competition Fines?

Last Updated: 3 October 2013
Article by Dieter Hauck and Esther Sowka-Hold

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have triggered significant debate in the competition field, both in Austria and at a European level. The rulings were issued by the Supreme Court, acting as the Higher Cartel Court, on December 5 2011.

Displacing fault in merger notification

The first case1 involved a fine procedure against a German company for its failure to duly notify a past merger.

After the Germany company, in its role as purchaser, had sent notification of the merger in 2010, the Federal Competition Authority discovered that in 2007, it had failed to notify its earlier acquisition of the first 50% in the target (two Hungarian companies), even though such notification was clearly required under Austrian law.

While the 2010 merger was cleared without further investigation or problems, the authority brought a motion before the Cartel Court to fine the purchaser for its failure to notify the 50% acquisition in 2007. This was despite the fact that the target's turnover outside Hungary in 2006 had been minuscule: between just 0.03% and 2% of the company's worldwide turnover had been generated in Austria.

The purchaser did not challenge the legal question of whether the 2007 merger should have been notified, but argued that during that period, it had retained the services of a law firm to assess the planned transaction under competition law and claimed that this firm had notified the merger in Hungary only. It remained unclear why no notification had been made in Austria. The defendant further argued that a breach of Austrian law had not been intended, which was supported by the fact that all of the information on the 2007 merger had been openly declared in the 2010 notification.

The Cartel Court, acting as a trial court, imposed a fine of €4,500. It confirmed that the 2007 merger should have been notified and further clarified that the formal obligation to notify was not affected by the fact that the 2007 merger would most likely have raised no competition issues. A fine was imposed as a deterrent in order to prevent future situations in which mergers are notified some time after their implementation. However, the court accepted that the defendant's culpability had been marginal; therefore, the fine imposed was nominal. The authority appealed, as it considered the fine to be too low.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the 2007 merger should have been notified and also stated that fines can be imposed under the law only if the perpetrator can be proven to be at fault. In this regard, reference was made to Article 23 of EU Regulation 1/2003. The court explicitly pointed out that, with marginal culpability and negligible consequences, in exceptional cases the fine can be reduced to zero.

In the case at hand, it was clear that the law had not been infringed intentionally, but only by negligence. As the defendant had instructed a law firm to examine the relevant questions of law, it may have been the case that a justified error in law had occurred. The court further reasoned that such an error in law may exclude the imposition of a fine due to the change in the European competition law system under EU Regulation 1/2003. Individual undertakings are now responsible for the correct legal evaluation facts (the legal exemption regime).

Following a detailed discussion of these concepts, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the trial court in order to clarify certain facts, in particular:

  • Which law firm had been retained in 2007?
  • What type of assessment had it been tasked with conducting?
  • Was this assessment limited to Hungary or did it include checking notification duty on a pan-European basis?

The Supreme Court also ordered the trial court to analyse what information had been given to the law firm in order to carry out the competition law assessment. Thereafter, the trial court was requested to evaluate whether a justified error in law had occurred which excluded the imposition of a fine or warranted a review of the fine amount.

Supreme Court cartel case referred to ECJ

In the second case2 the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in the official parties' appeals against a Cartel Court decision dismissing the authority's application for the imposition of fines against several freight forwarding agents for suspected cartel activity, and referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Cartel Court had dismissed the requested fine for lack of fault. This decision was criticised by the European Commission, which filed ex officio amicus curiae (Article 15(3) of EU Regulation 1/2003) comments.

The freight forwarding agents had been members of an association. In 1994, as requested by the Cartel Law in place at the time, the association notified for registration and clearance before the Cartel Court. During the ongoing notification procedure, a regulatory body rendered an expert opinion stating that European law was not applicable as trade among member states was not affected by the association's activities. After Austria had joined the European Union, the Cartel Court decided in 1996 that the notified facts amounted to a de minimis cartel which had not been captured under the Austrian Cartel Act. Consultation with external lawyers specialising in competition law also confirmed that the association's agreements could stand. The association, its agreements and price lists were openly known and available through the media. Further checks with a law firm specialised in competition law in 2005 identified no legal problems, although explicit statements on compliance with European law were not made.

The European Commission conducted dawn raids in 2007 and the association was dissolved. In 2010 the authority requested the Cartel Court to impose fines for violations of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Austrian Cartel Law. The duration of the infringement was specified as the period between 1994 and 2007.

On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether an error in law may exclude the imposition of a fine and established that EU law does not provide a clear answer. The ECJ had not had an opportunity to decide on this issue since the amended EU Regulation 1/2003 – with the legal exception regime – entered into force. Finally, the Supreme Court was unclear as to whether national competition authorities have jurisdiction to establish infringement as a fact without simultaneously imposing a fine.

Following detailed analysis of European case law and doctrine, the Supreme Court put the following questions to the ECJ:

  • Is it possible to fine an undertaking for infringing Article 101 where that undertaking was in error regarding the legality of its actions and such error was justifiable?
  • If not, is an error on the legality of actions justifiable if an undertaking acts according to advice from an adviser specialised in competition law and the incorrectness of such advice was neither obvious nor identifiable by the undertaking by reasonable checks?
  • Is an error on the legality of actions justifiable if an undertaking relies on the correctness of a decision by a national competition authority, which has judged the actions solely on the basis of national competition law and has found such actions permissible?
  • Do national competition authorities have jurisdiction to establish that an undertaking was involved in a cartel infringing EU law if such undertaking cannot be fined because it has been granted immunity under a leniency programme?


The ECJ's opinion on these complex questions of law will potentially affect company behaviour and requests made to law firms that specialise in competition law. It is thought that the effect that compliance measures may eventually have on the imposition or amount of fines could be modified by these decisions.

The decision on the question of positive establishment decisions will also complement the recent ECJ case law in Tele 2 Polska,3 where the ECJ ruled that national competition authorities are not competent to render negative establishment decisions (eg, establishing that European law is not infringed by certain behaviour).


1 16 Ok 2/11.

2 16 Ok 4/11.

3 C-375/09.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions