Ms Isolde Goggin:

The maximum level of the fine is set in the legislation. It is up to 10% of annual turnover. The normal practice is that there are fining guidelines which set out the aggravating and mitigating factors. Certain factors might result in a reduction in the fine and others might result in an increase in it. It is important to reiterate that leniency is the way the information is obtained, which leads to the investigation in the first place. Leniency is an investigative tool used at the start of the process, not a tool of justice used at the end of the process. The purpose of leniency is not to be nice to parties; it is to get the information that allows others to be pursued. The pool of those eligible for leniency is quite small. The idea is that it facilitates the cracking of the cartel.

The European Commission has been using this method and imposing fines for years. Some of the fines imposed in the cartel cases are very substantial. For example, there was a whole series of related cartels in the car parts industry. That resulted in fines that amounted to €2 billion. The Commission has also imposed some very substantial fines for the abuse of dominance on companies in the technology sector. The levels of fines imposed in this area are certainly a few orders of magnitude higher than the fines imposed in cases such as that referred to by the Deputy. Again, it comes down to the evidence.

Coming back to the point raised about natural justice, we envisage that the fines would be overseen by the courts. The fines in competition cases have been more related to the level of damage caused and the turnover of the companies involved. They can be very substantial indeed. I might ask Mr. McHugh to add to that.