Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by topic- Cartels and collusion €55.1m 81 % · 4 cases
- Merger control €13m 19 % · 2 cases
- no topic €50,855 0 % · 1 case
Who?
by companyWhen?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | €7.43m |
| 2024 | 2 | €60.1m |
| 2025 | 2 | €540,000 |
| 2026 | 1 | €50,855 |
7 cases
30 Apr 2026 „Вазовски машиностроителни заводи“ ЕАД (VMZ)Arms manufacturer VMZ used a partner’s know-how for disposable grenade launchers – 50,855 EUR €50,855
On application by a client, the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found that VMZ had used technical documentation on disposable grenade launchers that had been provided in confidence (trade secret) contrary to the confidentiality agreements and good commercial practice (Art. 37(1) ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act). Sanction of 50,855.09 EUR and obligation to cease, with immediate enforceability. Appeals have been lodged against the decision.
Design documents provided in confidence may only be used within the agreed scope – especially in sensitive industries.
Handling confidential know-how of business partners
- Authority / court
- Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
- Area of law
- Competition law
- Legal basis
- Art. 37 Abs. 1 ZZK (Geschäftsgeheimnisse)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Defence and security
- КЗК Публичен електронен регистър – Производство (Решение № 389 от 30.04.2026; Volltext als PDF im Register) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Dec 2025 The Boeing Company und Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.Boeing/Spirit AeroSystems: takeover only with divestiture of Airbus supplier plants Order
For the 8.3 billion USD takeover of the fuselage and wing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required Boeing to divest Spirit’s Airbus businesses to Airbus and the plant in Subang, Malaysia, to CTRM, to provide transitional services and to continue supplying defence competitors. A monitor oversees implementation.
Vertical acquisitions of a supplier on which competitors also depend often only go through with divestitures and supply commitments.
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Section 7 Clayton Act; Section 5 FTC Act (Consent Order)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- FTC Requires Boeing to Divest Several Spirit Assets to Proceed with Merger (03.12.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Apr 2025 Securitas Sicherheitsdienstleistungen GmbH, Securitas ABSecuritas: €540,000 fine for collusion in tenders for security services €540,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) imposed a fine of 540,000 EUR, jointly and severally, on Securitas Sicherheitsdienstleistungen GmbH and Securitas AB. From August 2019 to December 2022, an employee coordinated prices and strategic information with a competitor in three private tenders for manned security services. The Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (BWB, Federal Competition Authority) granted a reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.
Even a few coordinated bids in private tenders are enough for a fine; sales teams need clear rules on contacts with competitors.
Information exchange with competitors in tenders
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Z 1 lit. a KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 1,000 to 9,999
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.
- Published
- 12 Feb 2026
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
2 Jul 2024 three Belgian security services companiesSecurity services cartel: €47.1m against two providers, third as leniency applicant €47.1m
In a settlement procedure, the Belgian competition authority found that three security services companies (providers A, B and C), from 2008 to 2020 and across Belgium, applied minimum hourly rates from their trade association, coordinated their conduct in public and private tenders and agreed not to poach each other's staff (no-poach). The fines amount to 35,895,112 EUR jointly and severally for provider A and its parent companies and 11,200,000 EUR jointly and severally for provider B and its parent companies, allegedly 47,095,112 EUR in total; provider C and its parent company, as leniency applicants, received a fine of 0 EUR. According to the authority's press release, it thereby made clear for the first time that no-poach agreements are prohibited as restrictions by object.
Agreements not to poach each other's employees are cartel infringements just like price-fixing and bid rigging and belong in every competition law training.
Competition law: bid rigging, trade association price recommendations and no-poach agreements
- Authority / court
- Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit / Autorité belge de la Concurrence (BMA/ABC) – Auditorat (Vergleichsentscheidung)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. IV.1 Wetboek van economisch recht / Code de droit économique (WER/CDE), Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; Art. IV.59 und IV.79 § 1 WER/CDE
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement procedure with acknowledgement of participation; provider C received full immunity from fines as leniency applicant.
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 3 Jul 2024
- ABC/BMA, Décisions (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Version 2 · Company name anonymised since 2 Jul 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Apr 2024 a German defence groupCNMC: €13m fine on German defence group for misleading merger notification €13m
The Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC, Spanish competition and markets authority) imposed two fines of 6,500,000 EUR each, totalling 13,000,000 EUR, on the defence group because, when notifying its acquisition of a Spanish munitions manufacturer, the group concealed the parties' activities in nitrocellulose and wet paste (a mixture of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine). In response to a later request for information from the authority it also provided incomplete and misleading information; the acquisition had previously been cleared in phase one.
Merger notifications must disclose every market in which the parties are active; incomplete information is punished as obstruction of the authority even after clearance has been granted.
Complete and truthful information in merger control proceedings
- Authority / court
- Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Art. 62.3.c) und Art. 39 Ley 15/2007 de Defensa de la Competencia
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 14 May 2024
- CNMC, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 30 Apr 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Sep 2023 a German defence groupDefence group: €1.2m fine for market sharing in military hand grenades €1.2m
According to the European Commission's findings, the group and a competitor shared the national markets for military hand grenades in the EEA between themselves from 7 November 2007 to 23 November 2021 – the Commission's first cartel case in the defence sector. In the settlement procedure, the group received a fine of €1.2m after reductions of 50% (leniency) and 10% (settlement), the amount having first been significantly increased for deterrence; the competitor, as leniency applicant, was not fined.
In the defence sector too, sharing national markets between manufacturers is a cartel infringement.
Market sharing between competitors
- Authority / court
- Europäische Kommission
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Mitigating circumstances
- 50% reduction under the leniency programme and 10% for the settlement.
- Published
- 21 Sep 2023
- Europäische Kommission, Presseraum (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 21 Sep 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Jul 2023 four Spanish defence suppliersCNMC: cartel fines on defence suppliers for sharing out army contracts €6.23m
The Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC, Spanish competition and markets authority) sanctioned two cartels through which companies shared out tenders of the Spanish Ministry of Defence for the maintenance and modernisation of military vehicles and for camp containers between 2016 and 2021; almost one hundred contracts worth around 60 million EUR were affected. The fines on the companies total 6,225,076 EUR (3,302,912, 1,517,944, 1,304,220 and 100,000 EUR). The decision was forwarded to the Junta Consultiva de Contratación Pública del Estado (State public procurement advisory board) with a view to a possible debarment.
Cover bids, non-participation agreements and misused bidding consortia in public tenders lead to fines and debarment; an effective compliance programme is taken into account when assessing the exclusion.
Bid rigging in public tenders
- Authority / court
- Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 1 und Art. 62.4.a) Ley 15/2007 de Defensa de la Competencia; Art. 101 AEUV; Vergabeverbot nach Art. 71.1.b) Ley 9/2017 de Contratos del Sector Público (Prüfung durch die Junta Consultiva)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Mitigating circumstances
- The CNMC assessed some of the compliance programmes submitted positively; they did not reduce the fines, but after a review in six months they may be taken into account in the decision on debarment.
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 25 Jul 2023
- CNMC, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 19 Jul 2025 · Direct link