NETHERLANDS Law and Practice Contributed by: Ekram Belhadj and Cees Dekker, Simmons & Simmons LLP
at the time of sending the leniency statement, the applicant has no opportunity to withdraw the dispatched information. Markers A leniency applicant who submits an incomplete leniency application may be eligible for a marker if the ACM believes the application offers a con - crete basis for reasonable suspicion of the appli - cant’s involvement in a cartel, and the leniency applicant provides information on at least the name and address of the leniency applicant, the cartel participants, the affected products or ser - vices, the cartel’s geographic scope, the cartel’s duration, the nature of the cartel’s practices and whether the leniency applicant has approached or may approach the European Commission with regard to the cartel. The duration of the marker will be set by the leniency officer. As soon as a complete application has been submitted within the time limit the leniency officer has set for it, the marker will turn into a proper leniency appli - cation. Reduction of Fines The ACM grants a leniency applicant a reduc - tion of at least 30% and no more than 50% on a fine if immunity from fines is no longer available in case the applicant is not the first in the door and the ACM has not yet sent an SO. In order to qualify for a reduction, the applicant must be the first to submit an application that contains information which adds significant value to the ACM’s investigation, and complies with the obli - gation to co-operate. The second company that submits an application for reduction of a fine can get a reduction of 20–30%; subsequent appli - cants can get a reduction of up to 20%. Lastly, the ACM does not keep an official pub - lic record of its grants of leniency, nor does it publish details of these in its annual reports.
However, in each decision in which it imposes fines, the ACM will publish the extent to which it applied leniency. 3.3 Whistle-Blowers The Whistleblower Protection Act provides safeguards for individuals who report suspect - ed wrongdoing to a competent authority, such as the ACM, including on (potential) violations of EU law, or actions that threaten the public interest by breaching or potentially breaching regulations. Whistle-blowers covered by this act are natural persons who, in the context of their work-related activities, report or disclose suspected wrongdoing. Such suspicion arises when a whistle-blower believes that, within the organisation they work or have worked for, or another organisation they have come into con - tact with through their work, there is wrongdoing as described. This suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds derived from the knowledge acquired through their employment or through their work with another company or organisa - tion. Whistle-blowers reporting suspected violations of the cartel prohibition to the ACM are thus pro - tected under this law. The ACM has clarified that reports should not be based merely on rumours or information read in the press. The Whistle - blower Protection Act stipulates that a whistle- blower must not be disadvantaged during or after the handling of a report, provided that the report to the employer or competent authority is made with reasonable grounds to believe that the information about the suspected misconduct is accurate at the time of reporting. Disadvan - tage includes dismissal, suspension, demotion, denial of promotion, transfer, discrimination, negative evaluation, or premature termination of a contract for goods or services. This is particu -
243 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook