Short Reads

Amsterdam District Court ruled that EU Commission is best placed to decide on disclosure of its cartel decisions

Amsterdam District Court ruled that EU Commission is best placed to decide on disclosure of its cartel decisions

Amsterdam District Court ruled that EU Commission is best placed to decide on disclosure of its cartel decisions

01.04.2015

In a judgment of 27 March 2015, the District Court of Amsterdam ("District Court") dismissed claims from claim vehicle Equilib that certain addressees of the European Commission air cargo decision should disclose a confidential version of this decision and documents from files of various non-European competition authorities. The District Court furthermore ruled that claims from the airlines that would require Equilib to hand over a large amount of documents in relation to its claims were "premature".

Equilib had argued it needed the unredacted Commission decision and the other documents to substantiate further its damage claims. Equilib suggested to ring-fence the confidential version around itself and its advisors, after a redaction of references to leniency corporate statements. The airlines stated that all the necessary information could be found in the publicly available summary of the decision.

The District Court decided that Equilib had not sufficiently substantiated why it needed the information in the confidential decision and the other documents, taking into account the information already available in the summary. Furthermore, the District Court considered that on the basis of EU law, the rights of addressees as well as non-addressees of the decision should be safeguarded, which would make the redaction process of a 300 page decision an extensive, time-consuming and burdensome task. The European Commission is better equipped for this task, and its publication process has reached an advanced stage.

The District Court also rejected claims from the airlines that Equilib should hand over, among others, a large amount of transport documents or "airway bills". The District Court considered that at this stage of the proceedings it is up to Equilib to substantiate further its claims, especially with regard to the alleged damage and causal link. Equilib should detail the specific routes, flights and actions for which it seeks damages. By this substantiation of Equilib the airlines may receive the information they are looking for, which would make their claim unnecessary.

In another damage claim against the airlines, instituted by claim vehicle SCC, the District Court reached a similar conclusion with regard to the airway bills sought. The District Court furthermore decided that the appropriate time to rule on the request from the airlines to stay the proceedings, awaiting the outcome of the European proceedings against the air cargo decision, would be after the airlines submit their statement of defence.

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more