The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has held four companies operating in the postal services and media sectors and two natural persons liable for bid rigging in the context of the public procurement procedure for the award of the 2023-2027 concession for the distribution of newspapers.
This marks the first time that the BCA has prosecuted and fined individuals for their direct involvement in the manipulation of a public procurement procedure.
The decision follows the BCA’s recent announcement and public consultation on its new draft guidance on the application of the competition rules to public procurement, which is designed to help public procurement managers prevent anticompetitive conduct from happening and identify any such behaviour if the preventive measures fail.
Background: concession for the distribution of newspapers in Belgium
In 2021, the Belgian federal government launched a public procurement procedure for the second concession for newspaper distribution for the period 2023 – 2027. The first concession, covering the period 2016–2020 and later extended until the end of 2022, had been awarded to and executed by bpost.
The second concession was never awarded and was abolished following a decision by the federal government. Nevertheless, the BCA opened an investigation into potential infringements of Belgian and EU competition law, specifically anticompetitive agreements, during the public procurement procedure. The case came to light under the BCA’s leniency programme.
BCA discovers manipulation of public procurement procedure
In its decision of 13 February 2026, the BCA concluded that the four entities operating in the Belgian postal services sector and two natural persons had engaged in bid rigging in the public procurement procedure for the award of the 2023-2027 concession for the distribution of newspapers.
Bid rigging is a form of anticompetitive behaviour in public procurement procedures that manifests itself in a variety of practices such as the allocation of customers, territories, allotments or types of assignments and the submission of cover offers to create a false impression of competition. Significantly, this is the rare type of competition law infringement which in Belgium also carries criminal penalties.
In this case, the four entities involved, bpost, DPG Media, Mediahuis and PPP, aimed at ensuring that bpost would be awarded the concession by agreeing that PPP would not submit an offer, which meant that bpost would be the only bidder. To compensate PPP for its non-participation, DPG Media and Mediahuis agreed to grant PPP additional volumes for the distribution of their newspapers.
Applying the leniency programme and settlement reductions, the BCA imposed the following fines: on DPG Media a reduced fine (50% fine reduction and 10% settlement reduction) of EUR 3,786,574 and on Mediahuis a reduced fine (40% fine reduction and 10% settlement reduction) of EUR 7,788,423. PPP was fined EUR 323,486. bpost benefited from full immunity as it had revealed the infringement to the BCA under the leniency programme.
Interestingly, for the first time, the BCA also fined two natural persons, employed by bpost at the time, finding that they were directly involved in the bid rigging scheme. The fines imposed on these two persons were reduced by 50%, resulting in a total of EUR 6,300, given that this is the first time that the BCA fines individuals. They also benefitted from a further 10% fine reduction on account of the settlement reached in this case. The BCA indicates that no less than thirteen individuals sought and obtained immunity from prosecution in exchange for their cooperation with the investigation.
BCA decision follows recent public consultation
Public procurement has long featured among the BCA’s enforcement priorities (see, VBB Belgian Antitrust Watch of 30 April 2025), and the BCA recently adopted significant enforcement decisions regarding private security and fire protection services (see, VBB Belgian Antitrust Watch of 4 July 2024 and of 9 July 2024). The BCA is also currently organizing a public consultation on a draft guide for public buyers aimed at raising their awareness of distortions of competition (see VBB Belgian Antitrust Watch of 8 January 2026).
However, this case stands apart as this is the first time that the BCA prosecuted and fined not only entities, but also natural persons directly involved in the infringement. According to the BCA, they “actively contributed to the perpetration or implementation of the prohibited conduct”.
This case confirms the expectation that the BCA will become more actively involved in public procurement procedures. As also explained by the BCA Prosecutor General, Damien Gerard:
“This case confirms that the manipulation of public procurement procedures remains a top priority for the BCA, as also apparent from the ongoing public consultation on a draft guide for public buyers aimed at raising their awareness of distortions of competition. This decision is also important as it signals that individuals can also be held liable for competition infringements, next to the companies for which they operated.”
