On 20 November 2014, the Supreme Court issued a preliminary ruling on the transitional regime between the former competition law of 2006 and the new Code of Economic Law of 2013, in the context of an appeal procedure before the Brussels Court of Appeal.
The former Competition Council adopted on 30 August 2013 a decision fining cement manufacturers for anticompetitive concerted practices in breach of Article 2 of the former competition law (Article IV.1 of the Code of Economic Law) (See VBB on Belgian Business Law, Volume 2013, No. 9, p. 9, available at www.vbb.com).
The parties appealed from this decision on 30 September 2013 and 2 October 2013. However, the Code of Economic Law, which contains the new Belgian competition law provisions, had entered into force on 6 September 2013. The Brussels Court of Appeal decided to suspend the proceedings to ask several questions to the Supreme Court on the procedural requirements of this appeal, which was brought against a decision of the former Council but after the entry into force of the new law.
The Supreme Court first stated that, pursuant to the principle of immediate application of new laws, Article IV.79 of the Code of Economic Law (on the appeals against competition decisions) applies to appeals filed before the Brussels Court of Appeal from the date of the entry into force of the Code of Economic Law. Since the former competition law has been abolished by the Code of Economic Law, only Article IV.79 covers the appeal procedure.
In addition, the Supreme Court recalled that the new Competition Authority fulfils the same tasks and enforces the same substantive rules as the former authority. The continuity between the tasks of both authorities finds confirmation in the wording of the Law of 3 April 2013 incorporating the Code of Economic Law into Belgian law. More specifically, Article 22 of this Law provides that procedural acts accomplished under the former competition law continue to apply under the new law and that the new Authority continues to handle the cases initiated by the former authority. This continuity implies that the new authority is the successor of the former authority, even in cases where a decision had already been adopted before the entry into force of the Code of Economic Law. The Supreme Court found that, not only the decisions of the Competition College, but also those of its predecessor, the former Competition Council, should be open to appeal on the basis of Article IV.79(1) of the Code of Economic Law.
Finally, the Court made clear that since the appeals against decisions of the former Competition Council are based on Article IV.79 of the Code of Economic Law, they should abide by the procedural rules of this provision and thus be filed against the current Competition Authority.
