Short Reads

Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent eco

Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

01.08.2018 NL law

On 20 July 2018, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland published another interim judgment in the ongoing proceedings between TenneT, the grid operator in the Netherlands, and ABB in relation to the gas insulated switchgear (GIS) infringement. After the Dutch Supreme Court had confirmed in a judgment of 8 July 2016 [see our August 2016 Newsletter] that the passing-on defence is available under Dutch law, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland decided to appoint independent economic experts to provide input on the calculation of overcharge and the existence of pass-on.

The District Court had awarded an amount of EUR 23 million plus interest to TenneT. In its ruling, the District Court rejected ABB's attempt to invoke the passing-on defence, holding that it would not be reasonable to allow it considering the circumstances of the case [see our April 2017 Newsletter article which refers to the previous rulings]. On appeal, ABB argued that the District Court (i) incorrectly calculated the overcharge resulting from the GIS cartel and (ii) erred in law in ruling that it was not reasonable to allow the passing-on defence.

The Court of Appeal of Gelderland did not opine on the merits of these grounds of appeal in its judgment of 29 May 2018. It did, however, make clear that the Court of Appeal of Gelderland wishes to conduct a more in-depth investigation into the actual loss suffered by TenneT as a result of ABB's involvement in the GIS cartel by appointing economic experts to establish the resulting overcharge.

Regarding the passing-on defence, the Court of Appeal referred to the earlier Supreme Court judgment (noted above) establishing that a passing-on defence can be cognizable under Dutch law either as a factor affecting the loss suffered by a claimant (i.e. reducing any alleged loss associated with the payment of 'overcharges' to the extent that the overcharge was passed on), or under the doctrine of voordeelstoerekening, which holds that benefits enjoyed by a claimant as a result of alleged wrongdoing may under certain conditions be offset against the loss suffered by the claimant (cf. under German law: Vorteilsausgleichung).

The Supreme Court held that lower courts are free to decide which of the two approaches to adopt. The Court of Appeal opted for the first approach and decided that in order to fully assess the passing-on defence, it must first establish whether TenneT actually passed-on the overcharge to its customers.

As a final remark, it is perhaps worth noting that the Court of Appeal also confirmed that the District Court was right to reject ABB's request to submit the economic expert reports under a "confidentiality ring", considering that the interests in confidentiality of ABB did not outweigh the interests of third parties to obtain an unredacted judgment.

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

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  4. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  5. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  6. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  7. Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

 

Team

Related news

03.09.2020 NL law
COVID-19 impacts level and payment of antitrust fines

Short Reads - As well as granting companies leeway on certain COVID-19 initiated collaborations (see our May 2020 newsletter), the coronavirus outbreak has also led competition authorities to take a more lenient stance towards fine calculations and payments. The European Commission has extended the due date for fine payments by an additional three months in response to potential short-term liquidity issues brought about by the pandemic. Similar reasons led the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal to reduce a EUR 1 million cartel fine to just EUR 10,000.

Read more

03.09.2020 NL law
The ACM’s Green Deal: achieving sustainability via competition law?

Short Reads - The ACM has issued draft guidelines on the application of competition law to sustainability agreements. Companies entering into agreements that restrict competition but contribute to governmental sustainability objectives – i.e. lower CO2 emissions – may expect more room for collaboration. The proposed framework would allow these types of agreements if their anti-competitive effects are outweighed by their environmental benefits to society as a whole (rather than to in-market consumers only, as under the existing framework).

Read more

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

03.09.2020 NL law
Home, but not alone: Commission may complete dawn raids from home

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected Nexans’ appeal in the power cables cartel case. The Commission started the dawn raid at Nexans’ premises, but due to lack of time finished the raid at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The ECJ found that the Commission can copy data and assess its relevance to the investigation at its own premises, while safeguarding companies’ rights of defence.

Read more