Belgian Competition College dismisses appeal in Informex case and confirms absence of infringement to competition law

On 19 November 2024, the Belgian Competition College of the Belgian Competition Authority dismissed the appeal lodged by Carrossiers réunis ASBL in December 2023 against the classification decision in the Informex case. Informex manages a platform used by insurance companies, experts and car repairers to estimate car repairs and facilitates the administrative formalities in the handling of the insurance claim.

The Applicant, Carrossiers réunis is a professional association representing independent body repairers. In 2014, it lodged a complaint with the Belgian Competition Authority against Informex, insurance companies, and trade associations including Informex members for infringements of the Code of Economic Law (CDE) and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The complaint stated that agreements between the undertakings were illegal and an abuse of dominance. The alleged infringements concerned collusion and unfair agreements violating Articles IV.1 CDE and 101 TFEU, excessive pricing and misinformation in car repair software, breaching Articles IV.2 CDE and 102 TFEU.

After an investigation, which included requests of information from thousands of concerned parties (e.g. experts and car repairers), the Belgian Investigation and Prosecution Service concluded on 27 October 2023 in a motived decision that all the allegations were unfounded.

On 22 December 2023, Carrossiers réunis filed an appeal against the classification decision, focusing on the first grievance before the Competition College of the Belgian Competition Authority.

Firstly, the applicant argued in substance that the Belgian Investigation and Prosecution Service erroneously concluded the following:  

• the implementation of control and sanction procedures is not a practice that jurisprudence usually considers harmful "per se";
• this type of clause is customary in a contractual relationship; and
• the fact that the intermediary's duty of independence has been enshrined in national law is not sufficient to justify the existence of a restriction by object, as it would disregard the ECJ’s ruling in Allianz Hungary.

The Competition College’s decision confirmed that the Belgian Competition Authority must analyse the content and objectives of an agreement's provisions. It emphasised that the concept of “restriction by object” must be strictly interpreted, with contextual elements only supporting or neutralising the examination of the agreement's terms.

The Competition College noted the following:

• the contracts did not fall within less harmful categories identified by case-law;
• to determine if a new category of agreements is restrictive by object, one must consider the content, objectives, economic and legal context,  also declaring that a precedent is not needed to classify an agreement as restrictive by object, only the agreement's specific characteristics matter; and
• the circumstances of the Allianz Hungary ruling are not met.

Secondly, the applicant argued that the disputed agreement should be regarded as a restriction by object on the grounds that:

• it exploits consumers and distorts competition;
• it produces no pro-competitive effects, which would enable it to be classified as a restriction of competition by effect; and
• the contested Decision fails to assess the effects and harmfulness of the agreement.

In turn, the Competition College found that:

• this assessment is based on an argumentation that falls under the examination of the effects of the agreement;
• the applicant did not demonstrate that using an average repair cost necessarily underestimates damages, and comparisons with horizontal agreements do not apply to vertical agreements in this case; and
• while pro-competitive effects can negate a "restriction by object," their absence does not confirm such a restriction.

Moreover, the Belgian Investigation and Prosecution Service’s analysis of the agreement's effects did not establish a harmful nature. Consequently, the Competition College rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision of 27 October 2023.