The Court annuls the fine of 46 million to Prosegur and Loomis as the CNMC does not prove the existence of an agreement

MADRID, 20 Jul. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The National Court has annulled a fine of 46.4 million euros imposed by the National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC) on Prosegur and Loomis, considering that the body chaired by Cani Fernández has not proven the existence of a common plan and of a concerted practice between both companies to share the transport market.

Specifically, in 2016 the CNMC fined Prosegur 39.4 million euros and Loomis 7 million euros for dividing up the market, agreeing on prices and exchanging sensitive commercial information for seven years for the transport and handling of funds.

Now, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National High Court has upheld the appeal presented by Prosegur because it understands that there is no documentary evidence in the administrative file that shows that the behavior of the sanctioned women was due to a plan previously agreed between they.

The Chamber considers that the CNMC bases its conclusions on "assumptions and interpretations based on evidence that lacks a direct relationship with the fact that it wants to prove", since the appellant has offered "reasonable alternative explanations" for each of these evidence. , some based on legal norms, which, according to the ruling, should have led the CNMC "to be more demanding" in the reasoning that rejects these alternative explanations as justifications for the imputed behavior.

"The behavior of the appellant could be protected by reasons of optimization of resources and rationalization of expenses. Reasonable alternative explanations that justify the behavior of the appellant and that, in addition, have legal protection, which leads this Court to conclude that the indications of concerted action on which the CNMC has relied cannot constitute evidence for the prosecution," the ruling states.

In this way, the Chamber concludes that the CNMC has not proven that the imputed conducts have been carried out in execution of a common and concerted plan or taking advantage of the same occasion that implies a complementary link between the imputed companies.

On the contrary, this Chamber understands that the CNMC has justified in a "voluntary and artificial" way the existence of that concerted plan in that it has relied on striking expressions collected in some internal emails issued by company employees.

However, according to the judgment, there is no proof of an element of cohesion or a link of complementarity between the actions carried out by the accused companies in order to frame these behaviors within the achievement of a common objective of the plan agreed by the charged companies.