Short Reads

Changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

Changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

Changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

03.11.2015 NL law

In the Netherlands, changes concerning the implementation of the antitrust damages directive have been proposed. In the UK, other changes concerning antitrust damages claims have recently been implemented.

Changes in the Netherlands

On 8 October 2015, the Dutch ministers of Justice and Economic affairs published a proposal for an act implementing the EU Antitrust Damages Directive (the "Proposal"). The Proposal  would see the Damages Directive implemented in new separate sections of the Dutch Civil Code ("DCC") and the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure ("DCCP") that will apply specifically to EU competition law infringements.

The Proposal largely follows the provisions of the Directive. These provisions concern inter alia, the tortious nature of EU competition law infringements and the presumption that they cause damage, joint and several liability for joint actions, the validity of a passing-on defence and an evidentiary presumption that overcharges are passed on to indirect purchasers [see our April 2014 newsletter]. 

In line with the Directive, the proposal states that immunity applicants will only be jointly and severally liable towards their own direct and indirect customers and suppliers, unless claimants cannot obtain redress from any of the other cartel participants. 

The Proposal adopts the provisions on the protection of leniency and settlement submissions of the Damages Directive. Disclosure cannot be ordered for leniency documents or settlement submissions, and such documents cannot be used as evidence. Certain other documents, such as replies to requests for information, can only be disclosed after the competition authority has closed its proceedings. With regard to the disclosure of evidence, the explanatory memorandum describes that the current system already provides for broader disclosure than required on the basis of the Directive.

In line with the current limitation periods for torts, the Proposal suggests a subjective limitation period of five years and an objective limitation period of twenty years. Following the Directive, the subjective limitation period only starts to run when the infringement has ended and the claimant is aware of the behaviour, infringer and damage. The subjective limitation period is interrupted when an investigatory act is performed or proceedings are initiated by a competition authority. Also in case of a consensual dispute resolution process the limitation period is interrupted. In that case a new limitation period of a maximum of three years starts to run.

The Proposal does not contain provisions on the prevention of overcompensation of claimants and multiple liability (Articles 12(1) and 15 of the Damages Directive). According to the explanatory memorandum, the legislator considers that this is already sufficiently safeguarded under Dutch law.

Other changes in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, changes to the rules on antitrust damages claims have recently been implemented. On 1 October 2015, the Consumer Rights Act ("Act") and the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") Rules came into force. The most remarkable change is the introduction of an opt-out collective action regime for UK residents. This choice for an opt-out system in the UK deviates from the European Commission's preference for an opt-in system, as described in its Recommendation on collective redress. The CAT can from now on also hear stand-alone damages claims and grant injunctions. Also, the limitation period for claims before the CAT has been extended to six years from the date on which the infringing conduct comes to an end.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2015. Other articles in this newsletter:

Back to top

Team

Related news

09.05.2018 NL law
FAQ: Hoe is de bestuurlijke handhaving van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) vormgegeven?

Articles - Op 25 mei 2018 treedt de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming ("AVG") in werking. De verordening heeft rechtstreekse werking in het Nederlandse rechtssysteem. Het gevolg daarvan is dat de Nederlandse privacywaakhond, de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, een scala handhavingsinstrumenten op grond van de AVG kan inzetten om naleving van de privacywetgeving te bevorderen.

Read more

01.05.2018 EU law
Germany did not err in extraditing an Italian citizen to the US for a competition law infringement

Short Reads - On 10 April 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Germany did not breach EU law by extraditing an Italian citizen to the United States for a competition law infringement in a situation where Germany's constitutional law does not permit extradition of its own nationals. The case highlights that extradition to the US for competition law infringements can be a real possibility for EU citizens.

Read more

04.05.2018 NL law
De benoeming van de accountant revisited

Articles - Een in 2012 aan de accountantsproblematiek gewijd themanummer het Tijdschrift voor Jaarrekeningenrecht  – uitgebracht onder de titel: ‘Accountants onder vuur’ – bevat een mooie, relativerende bijdrage van Huizink over de ‘benoeming’ van de accountant. Huizink plaatste de ook toen al actuele discussie over de wijze waarop de opdrachtverlening aan de accountant moet plaatsvinden in vennootschapsrechtelijk perspectief.

Read more

01.05.2018 EU law
European Commission imposes record fine on Altice for premature implementation of PT Portugal acquisition

Short Reads - On 24 April 2018, the European Commission announced that it had imposed a fine of EUR 124.5 million on Altice for acquiring control of PT Portugal before clearance by the Commission ('gun-jumping'). The fine is more than six times the amount which was previously imposed by the Commission for similar offences [see our November 2017 Newsletter for a discussion of the Marine Harvest case]. The Commission's recent enforcement actions against gun-jumping violations highlight the importance of strict competition law compliance during M&A transactions.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring