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

05.01.2016 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

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