Court annuls penalty clause tied to revenue from Competition Law
Scoop! The Constitutional Court just fingered Clause (5) of Article (34) in Law No. 72 of 2020 a big, ol' unconstitutional no-no!
In essence, this clause slapped a financial penalty of up to 1% of a violator's previous fiscal year profits, regardless of the naughtiness involved. Sounds harsh, huh? But the court thought it was too broad and arbitrary, thus violating private property rights and fairness penalties as stated in the Constitution.
To put it into perspective, think of it like a traffic cop handing out parking tickets based on the car's value, not the length of time parked improperly. That's the gist of this ruling.
Now, it's worth mentioning that the court did approve the rest of the disputed articles in the law. But, they tossed two more appeals. One took aim at Law No. 125 of 2023 on real estate agencies, and the other questioned Article (1/112) of Law No. 7 of 2010 regarding the Capital Markets Appeal Court's final decisions. Both were shot down, leaving their constitutionality intact.
But, let's get back to the big, juicy news. This decision marks a turning point for competition protection laws as it challenges revenue-based penalty structures. Given the precedent set, we might see modifications to the penalty frameworks to comply with the Constitution—all while keeping up the good fight against anti-competitive practices.
Stay tuned for updates on how this ruling ripples through our legal landscape!
This ruling, regarding Policy-and-Legislation around competition protection laws, marks a significant shift as it challenges revenue-based penalty structures, potentially leading to modifications in compliance with the Constitution. Such changes are expected in the Politics sphere, particularly in relation to the General-News of anti-competitive practices.
