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

20.06.2018 NL law
Op weg naar één Europese spoorwegruimte: de aanpassing van de Nederlandse wetgeving aan het Europese recht

Articles - Het zogenaamde 'Vierde Spoorwegpakket' zal belangrijke gevolgen hebben voor de Europese spoorwegruimte. De Nederlandse regering maakt goede vaart met de aanpassing van het nationale recht aan de eisen die uit het Vierde Spoorwegpakket voortvloeien. Inmiddels is een daartoe strekkend wetsvoorstel aanhangig bij de Tweede Kamer. De vaste commissie voor Infrastructuur en Waterstaat heeft eind vorige maand het verslag van haar bevindingen ten aanzien van het wetsvoorstel uitgebracht.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger

Short Reads - On 31 May 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Ernst & Young (EY) did not illegally implement the acquisition of KPMG Denmark (KPMG DK) before obtaining antitrust clearance.  Following the announcement of the transaction, KPMG DK terminated a cooperation agreement. According to the Court, that act cannot be regarded as a violation of the stand-still obligation since it did not contribute to the change of control of the target undertaking.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case

Short Reads - On 9 May 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam declined to accept jurisdiction over Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken, in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB). In the same judgment, the Amsterdam District Court did accept jurisdiction over the alleged claim brought by MTB against Heineken N.V. (Heineken), for the reason that Heineken is based in Amsterdam. The case against Heineken will therefore continue to the next procedural phase, in which the parties will debate the merits of MTB’s alleged claim against Heineken.

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