Henkel competition fine Cyprus: €3.3M | LLC Lawyers

Henkel competition fine Cyprus confirmed: €3.3M penalty upheld by Administrative Court for abuse of dominance in detergent market, says CPC.

In a recent decision the Administrative Court has dismissed an appeal by HENKEL AG & CO KGaA and GPM HENKEL Ltd, confirming the €3,302,000 fine imposed by the Cyprus Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC) for abuse of dominance in the wholesale market.

Background of the case

A complaint filed by K.A.C. Constantinides Trading Ltd against GPM Henkel Ltd, alleging anti-competitive practices under Article 6(1)(b) of the Protection of Competition Law 13(I)/2008, as amended, and Article 102(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The Cyprus Commission for the Protection of Competition found that Henkel engaged in acts to remove K.A.C. Constantinides Trading Ltd from the market. This resulted in limiting the competition and restricting consumer choices. 

 aimed at removing other parallel importers from the market, thereby limiting competition and restricting consumer choice. It was found that Henkel obstructed the sale of parallel imports of its detergent products, by discouraging retailers from purchasing them.Following an investigation, the CPC issued a decision imposing a joint and several fine of €3,302,000 on HENKEL AG & CO KGaA and GPM Henkel Ltd. The CPC also required the companies to cease any future violations of the competition law provisions.

Court Ruling

Henkel submitted recourse against the  CPC’s decision before the Administrative Court (Case No. 259/2020). 

The company raised several grounds for annulment, related to several aspects of the decision. They claimed procedural matters, such as lack of legal standing due to the withdrawal of the original complaint, the improper composition of the CPC and violation of procedural right, including delayed notification of findings and alleged unlawful collection of evidence.

Further, GPM Henkel Ltd claimed that the CPC misinterpreted the concept of “market dominance”, claiming that the company did not hold a dominant position in the relevant market. Lastly, the company claimed that the CPC ignored mitigating factors and imposed a disproportionate fine.

The Administrative Court, in its judgment dated 21 January 2025, rejected all the arguments and upheld the CPC’s findings and fine. The Court confirmed that Henkel’s actions constituted an abuse of dominance by restricting competition and limiting parallel trade to the detriment of consumers. The judgment also reaffirmed that the CPC was entitled to proceed with the investigation even after the original complainant withdrew its case. It was rule that the CPC has an independent duty to enforce competition law.

The judgment reinforces the principle that competition authorities can act independently to protect market integrity even if a complainant withdraws and underlines the importance of parallel trade in maintaining market competition. 

For more legal updates, visit our Blog section.

For more information or any inquiries, please feel free to contact us at info@lc-law.com.cy