The Belgian Competition Council finds that a directive adopted by a professional association imposing a maximum fee for a specific service constitutes an infringement by object of the Belgian Competition Act, but decides not to impose a fine, merely a publication obligation (National Chamber of Bailiffs)

BE31 [...] & Consorts/Chambre Nationale des Huissiers CONC-P/K-08/0016 Competition Council 08.12.11 I. The facts On 9 July 2008, a number of bailiffs lodged a complaint with the Belgian Competition Council claiming that the National Chamber of Bailiffs infringes Articles 2 and 3 of the Belgian Competition Act, the Belgian equivalents of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. More in particular, complainants claim that Directive 2008/001 on extra-judicial debt recovery, adopted by the national Chamber, infringes competition law. Bailiffs enjoy a legal monopoly for a number of activities that are of a public nature. These activities are listed in Article 516 of the Procedural Code, and comprise, among others, serving subpoenas, executing court orders, etc. When performing these tasks, a

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

  • McDermott Will & Emery (Brussels)

Citation

Hendrik Viaene, The Belgian Competition Council finds that a directive adopted by a professional association imposing a maximum fee for a specific service constitutes an infringement by object of the Belgian Competition Act, but decides not to impose a fine, merely a publication obligation (National Chamber of Bailiffs), 8 décembre 2011, e-Competitions December 2011, Art. N° 57035

Visites 155

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues