Short Reads

Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation to Dutch bitumen cartel

Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation

Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation to Dutch bitumen cartel

01.11.2018 NL law

The Rotterdam District Court recently clarified that the date of news coverage of a European Commission dawn raid will not set off the limitation period for a cartel damages claim if it is not clear to the potential cartel victim that one of its suppliers was involved.

It also found that the Dutch rules on evidence should be interpreted in accordance with the Damages Directive when the damages claim falls outside the scope of the Directive. It is therefore important to bear in mind that submitting details on news coverage of a cartel investigation may not suffice when arguing on the limitation period and that the Directive may have far-reaching consequences.

In September 2006, the Commission imposed fines on a number of bitumen suppliers, including Shell, Kuwait Petroleum and various construction companies, for their alleged participation in a price-fixing cartel in the bitumen market. The alleged cartel covered all bitumen used for road construction in the Netherlands from at least 1994 to 2002. Construction company Van Gelder claimed damages from Shell and Kuwait Petroleum, who supplied bitumen to it.

On 26 September 2018, the District Court of Rotterdam (the Court) ruled on the damages claim brought by Van Gelder in relation to the alleged bitumen cartel. The Court first ruled on relativity. According to the Court, being party to an agreement that restricts competition by object is in principle unlawful vis-à-vis all other market participants. Considering that at least one of the operating entities of Van Gelder was active in the relevant market, the Court concluded that the requirement of relativity had been fulfilled vis-à-vis this entity. The Court will decide on relativity in relation to the other operating entities and the shareholder at a later stage.

The Court then turned to the defence of statutory limitation. Referring to several press releases and newspaper articles, Shell argued that the relevant limitation period (article 3:310 (1) Dutch Civil Code) started to run no later than 22 October 2004. In the absence of a valid act of interruption or suspension, Van Gelder was out of time when it sent a claim letter on 5 September 2011. However, the Court sided with Van Gelder and held that it could not be inferred from the newspaper articles that (i) Kuwait Petroleum had participated in the cartel and (ii) the cartel had negatively influenced prices of non-cartelists. The Court concluded that the limitation period did not start to run until the date of the Commission's fining decision and therefore the claims were not time-barred.

With regard to applying the rules on evidence of the Damages Directive (the Directive), the Court first stated that the cartel took place between 1994 and 2002, which was outside the scope of the Directive (and its implementation). However, adhering to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the Court decided to interpret the applicable rules under Dutch law consistent with the Directive. This would, according to the Court, not lead to a contra legem interpretation of Dutch law. Consequently, the Court held that Van Gelder was presumed to have suffered damage unless Shell proves otherwise.

In conclusion, the Court held both Shell and Kuwait Petroleum  liable. The parties will now have a further debate on the amount of damage to be paid.

 

 

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

  1. Franchise argument in laundry cartel does not wash with Dutch court
  2. A problem shared is a problem halved: fine reduction and fine liability are correlated
  3. ACM bound by its own rules during dawn raids
  4. European Court of Justice clarifies the application of choice of forum clauses in competition damages claims

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

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
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