Neodyum Miknatis
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

District Court rules on the preliminary defences in CRT case

District Court rules on the preliminary defences in CRT case

District Court rules on the preliminary defences in CRT case

03.04.2018 NL law

On 29 November 2017, the District Court of East-Brabant ruled in four separate judgments (1, 2, 3 and 4) on preliminary defences raised by defendants in damages claims brought by various Brazilian claimants in relation to the alleged cartel in cathode ray tubes (CRT). 

 

These claims relate to the decision from the Commission in 2012 fining eight CRT producers for participation in two separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU. One infringement related to colour picture tubes (CPTs) and the other to colour display tubes (CDTs). The Brazilian competition authority also initiated proceedings regarding both products and concluded settlements with some of the defendants. In August 2016, the Brazilian claimants initiated damages proceedings in the Netherlands against various addressees of the Commission decision and other entities, based on an alleged infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition.

The District Court judgments dealt with several preliminary defences raised by the defendants. These related to (i) an alleged failure to furnish facts and (ii) the international jurisdiction of the Dutch civil court (which was only contested by the non-EU entities involved in the proceedings).

First, the District Court clarified that the claimants had indicated during the oral hearing that their claims were based on a possible infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition. The District Court concluded that the claimants had furnished sufficient facts to bring the case based on an infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition. To the extent that the claimants also wished to rely on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the District Court confirmed that Article 101 TFEU only covers practices which might affect trade among EU Member States. As the claimants had not furnished sufficient facts to show that their claims related to transactions in the EEA area, the District Court ruled that the proceedings would continue solely on the grounds of an alleged infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition.

Secondly, the District Court ruled in separate judgments on the defences relating to jurisdiction. Most of these defences were rejected. However, the District Court did allow the defence brought by one of the defendants claiming that it was being sued for damages in relation to the CDT infringement, even though it was not fined by the Commission for participation in the CDT infringement and was not investigated by the Brazilian competition authority.

In the next stage of the proceedings, the District Court will hear the parties' arguments on the application of the Brazilian statute of limitation to the claims for damages.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

1.       District Court Amsterdam rules real estate platform Funda did not abuse its dominant position

2.       First Dutch excessive pricing case in pharma may be expected soon

 

Team

Related news

07.01.2021 NL law
Commission evaluates Antitrust Damages Directive: to be continued

Short Reads - On 14 December 2020, the Commission published a report on the implementation of the Antitrust Damages Directive (the Directive). The Commission observes a significant increase in antitrust damages actions since the adoption of the Directive. However, there is insufficient experience with the new Directive to properly evaluate its application. Instead, the Commission provides a concise overview of the implementation of some key aspects of the Directive.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Amsterdam District Court puts a halt to unlimited forum shopping

Short Reads - On 25 November 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the Court) declined jurisdiction over all non-Dutch defendants (the foreign defendants) in proceedings for compensation of damage based partly on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The proceedings were initiated by four public utility companies from the Gulf States (claimants) against both Dutch and foreign defendants.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
ACM study calls for regulation of Big Techs on payment market

Short Reads - The ACM’s market study, published on 1 December 2020, provides an overview of recent and upcoming developments concerning the role of Big Tech companies in both online and offline payment markets in the Netherlands. Although Big Tech companies currently have a relatively limited presence in these markets, the ACM expects significant expansion in the near future given these companies’ ability to leverage existing market power on other (platform) markets.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Do the math: ACM publishes strategy on monitoring use algorithms

Short Reads - The ACM worries that the use of algorithms may lead to the creation of cartels, or nudge consumers towards a purchasing decision that is not in their best interest. Therefore, on 10 December 2020, it published a new policy document (in Dutch) setting out what businesses can expect when the ACM checks their algorithms. On the same day, the ACM also launched a trial with online music library Muziekweb to improve the ACM’s knowledge about the categories of data that are likely to be relevant in such investigations. All signs indicate the ACM’s intention to become more active in this area.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
(Geo)blockbuster: Canal+ ruling annuls commitment decision

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies seeking to settle in antitrust proceedings: commercially-affected third party complainants are not to be ignored. The Canal+ judgment marks the first time a commitment decision has been successfully challenged since the adoption of Regulation 1/2003. The European Court of Justice annulled the commitment decision on the ground that the Commission failed to take into account the rights of contractual parties affected by the commitments.

Read more