Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Articles

Minister of Economic Affairs published a draft policy rule on competition and sustainability for consultation

Minister of Economic Affairs published a draft policy rule on competition and sustainability for consultation

Minister of Economic Affairs published a draft policy rule on competition and sustainability for consultation

04.01.2016 NL law

On 23 December 2015, the Minister of Economic Affairs published a Draft Policy Rule on competition and sustainability ("Draft Policy Rule") for consultation. The Draft Policy Rule aims to replace the previous policy rule on competition and sustainability adopted in 2014. 

The Draft Policy Rule provides guidelines on the assessment of whether agreements relating to sustainability are exempted from the cartel prohibition.

The 2014 policy rule faced considerable criticism, as it was found by many to hamper sustainability initiatives. Examples of sustainability initiatives that were found to be in violation of competition rules by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") are the agreement between energy producers to close down coal-fired plants and the arrangements between supermarkets, poultry farmers, and broiler meat processors concerning the selling of chicken meat produced under enhanced animal welfare-friendly conditions [see our February 2015 newsletter].

Like the previous policy rule, the Draft Policy Rule contains the factors to be taken into account when assessing whether agreements in the interest of sustainability are exempted from the cartel prohibition. However, the Draft Policy Rule contains some new elements so as to provide a clearer and more concrete framework.

The Draft Policy Rule now determines that restrictive agreements comprising a set of arrangements should be examined as a whole, when assessing the efficiencies of the restrictive agreement.

Also new is the specification that both qualitative and quantitative benefits are to be taken into account in the assessment of the benefit resulting from the restrictive agreement. The 2014 policy rule did not specify whether qualitative or quantitative benefits were concerned, which led the ACM to conclude that benefits must be quantifiable. Furthermore, the Draft Policy Rule exempts, where possible, restrictive agreements that benefit society as a whole, as opposed to agreements not related to sustainability, which should benefit specific groups of consumers in order to be exempted.

The consultation phase ends on 31 January 2016.

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

Team

Related news

03.12.2020 NL law
The next 5 years: European Commission launches New Consumer Agenda

Short Reads - Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission is already looking ahead to set its consumer protection priorities for the next five years. Key points in the New Consumer Agenda include equipping consumers with better information on product sustainability, digital transformation, effective enforcement, safety concerning products ‘made in China’ and protecting particularly vulnerable consumers such as children, older people or those with disabilities. The New Consumer Agenda is a follow-up to the 2018 New Deal for Consumers.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Belgian prohibition on abuse of economic dependence comes into force and new fining guidelines

Short Reads - In 2019, Belgium introduced legislation banning abuse in relationships between companies where there is no dominant position, but rather a position of economic dependence. The act entered into force on 22 August 2020. This category of restrictive practice applies alongside the existing prohibitions on cartels and abuse of a dominant position. It opens up new opportunities but also new threats for companies that are not in a dominant position.

Read more

03.12.2020 NL law
On the right track? GC sends mixed messages with Lithuanian Railways

Short Reads - The essential facilities doctrine imposes on holders of indispensable facilities a duty to deal with their competitors. While a railway track may seem essential, a track’s removal does not fall under this doctrine if carried out by a monopolist manager of a state-developed facility bearing a statutory obligation to grant third parties access to its facilities. According to the General Court, the Commission was therefore correct to use the general framework for abuse of a dominant position to assess the Lithuanian railway operator’s removal of a railway track.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures

Short Reads - Companies beware: the turnover of a joint venture buying a target is not necessarily decisive for determining whether the EU merger thresholds are met. The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s 2017 decision prohibiting the joint acquisition of Cemex’s Hungarian and Croatian subsidiaries by cement companies HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their full-function joint venture (JV).

Read more

11.11.2020 EU law
Innovatie en staatssteun. Het CBb leidt de weg bij de belangrijke definities industrieel onderzoek en experimentele ontwikkeling

Short Reads - Het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (“CBb”) heeft op 6 oktober 2020 in een subsidiegeschil nadere invulling gegeven aan het onderscheid tussen “industrieel onderzoek” en “experimentele ontwikkeling”. Dit onderscheid staat centraal in nationale subsidieregelingen en Europese staatssteunregels die overheidsinvesteringen in onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie (“O&O&I”) mogelijk moeten maken.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
General Court confirms: no proof, no dawn raid

Short Reads - The Commission should think twice before conducting a dawn raid. The General Court partially annulled three Commission decisions ordering dawn raids at the premises of French supermarkets for a lack of sufficiently strong evidence with regard to one of the suspected anticompetitive practices. In addition, the General Court clarified that interviews held with suppliers prior to the issuing of a dawn raid decision can be used as evidence, even when these interviews have not been recorded.

Read more