Denmark - International Encyclopaedia of Laws

Part II, Ch. 1, Restrictive Agreements 353–356association’s twenty-seven members. The cooperation has been exempted threetimes, in 1999, in 2003 and most recently in April 2009.1. Taksatorringens vedtægter (in English: Bylaws of the Association of Insurance Appraisers), DanishCompetition Council decision of 29 Apr. 2009.353. According to the Danish Competition Council, the cooperation restrictscompetition but can be exempted for its pro-competitive effects. The cooperation isnecessary for the smaller insurance companies that cannot afford an in-house insuranceappraisal department. By granting the smaller insurance companies economiesof scale and buying power similar to those of the in-house appraisal departments oflarge insurance companies, the cooperation has clearly benefitted competition in themotor vehicle insurance market and the repair market.1. Bid Rigging354. Bid rigging is a hardcore infringement, for which there is no de minimisexemption. 11. See s. 7(2)(ii) of the Danish Competition Act.355. In El-kartellet (The Electricity Cartel Case), the Danish CompetitionAuthority conducted a series of dawn raids within the domestic electrical contractorbusiness. The Authority found that the contractors had coordinated their bids beforeparticipating in a tender, in contravention of the Act. Prior to the tender, the contractorshad agreed on which contractor should make the lowest bid and at whichprice. The remaining contractors could therefore make a higher bid to secure thetender for the agreed contractor. Further, the contractors kept a journal detailingwhich party’s turn it was to win the next tender. The Authority found that this concertedpractice not only led to higher prices for the individual tenders concerned,but also higher prices per account rendered.356. A somewhat similar case is the Danish Competition Appeals Tribunal’sruling in Fælleslicitationskontoret og Varmebranchens Licitationsforening. 1 TheTribunal found that the two trade associations involved had infringed section 6(2)(i)of the Act by adopting a mandatory ‘calculation fee’, which the organized tenderersshould stipulate when bidding on a contract. The purpose of the fee was to coverthe losing tenderers’ calculation costs. The case shows that it is not only traditionalbid rigging that is prohibited by section 6, but also agreements on additional chargeslimited to covering actual costs.1. Fælleslicitationskontoret og Varmebranchens Licitationsforening’Jermer’mod Konkurrencerådet,Danish Competition Appeals Tribunal decision of 20 Jan. 2000.Competition Law – (February 2011)Denmark – 81