Short Reads

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages

02.08.2016 EU law

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies are not liable for damages arising from antitrust infringements committed by their subsidiaries.

On 20 July 2016, the District Court of the Middle-Netherlands dismissed a EUR 30 million antitrust damages action filed by claim vehicle East West Debt B.V. ("EWD") against five Dutch elevator manufacturers and their ultimate parent companies.

EWD based its claim on a 2007 Commission Decision, in which the defendants were held liable for a competition law infringement that took place on the Dutch elevator market. Five Dutch companies were fined for taking part in the infringement, while four of their ultimate parent companies were held liable for the fine on the basis of the "presumption of decisive influence". This presumption entails that if an (indirect) parent company owns 100% of the shares in a subsidiary, it is presumed to exercise decisive influence over the commercial behaviour of that subsidiary. Under EU competition law, legal responsibility for the infringement and the related fine can be attributed to both the subsidiary that actually participated in the cartel and the parent company or companies that exercised decisive influence over that subsidiary.

The District Court ruled that this competition law doctrine of parental liability does not  extend to civil claims for damages. National law, and not EU competition law, governs the question whether the "corporate veil" can be pierced. As a matter of Dutch civil law, parent companies are not liable for wrongdoings committed by their subsidiaries. While there are special circumstances in which the corporate veil can be pierced, according to the District Court EWD had not stated sufficient facts to substantiate a damage claim against the parent companies.

The District Court also found that EWD failed to provide the requisite evidence to support its claims vis-à-vis the Dutch subsidiaries. More specifically, the Court considered that EWD failed to show that the claimants which EWD represents had purchased elevators and related services during the period in which the infringement took place. According to the judgment, EWD could not content itself by merely submitting aggregated data. At a minimum, EWD should have set out the basis for each specific claim, identifying the conditions under which the elevators and related services had been purchased. The District Court also noted that EWD should have submitted the assignment documentation to show that the claimants had assigned their damage claims to EWD.

The District Court of the Middle-Netherlands is the first Dutch court to rule on the question whether under Dutch law parent companies are liable to pay damages for infringements committed by their subsidiaries. The judgment also shows that claim vehicles like EWD must properly substantiate each individual claim they present in court. 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice clarifies the legality of royalty payments in the event of revocation or non-infringement of the licensed patent 
  2. General Court confirms fines imposed on the basis of economic continuity in maritime hose cartel 
  3. European Commission imposes record cartel fine on truck manufacturers for price fixing 
  4. European Commission deems support measures in favour of Dutch football clubs in line with State aid rules 
  5. Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages arising from antitrust infringements committed by their subsidiaries 
  6. ACM lowered fines in the pepper cartel case 
  7. Dutch Supreme Court confirms the availability of a passing-on defence in antitrust damages litigation 
  8. Brussels Court of Appeal rules that concerted lobbying efforts of cement producers do not breach competition law 
  9. Belgian competition authority upholds licence refusal to football club White Star

Source: Competition Law Newsletter August 2016

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
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

01.05.2018 EU law
European Commission proposes draft Regulation on online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - On 26 April 2018, the European Commission proposed a draft EU Regulation on key aspects of the contractual relationship between online platforms and their business users. The aim of the proposed Regulation is to create a fair and transparent business environment for smaller businesses and traders that use online search engines and online platforms to reach consumers. The proposed Regulation would be the first EU legislation to specifically address business-to-business relationships of this kind.

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

01.05.2018 EU law
District Court of Amsterdam rules on requests for pre-procedural hearings

Short Reads - On 29 March 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled on requests for pre-procedural hearings in relation to the alleged infringements in the two separate cases of Trucks and CRT. This is the first time a Dutch court has ruled on a request for a pre-procedural hearing in follow-on damages cases. The District Court of Amsterdam rejected both requests because it did not consider it likely that a pre-procedural hearing would be useful in either case.

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