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

Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under p

Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

07.02.2019 NL law

A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

Burying the courts under paperwork without any further specification or explanation will not do.

On 5 February 2019, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on the appeal brought by East West Debt B.V. (“EWD”) in the elevator cartel case. The Court confirmed an earlier judgment of the District Court of the Middle-Netherlands [see our August 2016 Newsletter] and dismissed all claims brought by EWD.

EWD based its claim on a 2007 Commission Decision, in which the defendant elevator manufacturers were held liable for a competition law infringement on the Dutch elevator market. The Court of Appeal held that this breach of European competition law does not automatically imply the existence of civil liability. To establish civil liability, the requirements of national tort law must be satisfied. Dutch tort law requires unlawfulness, imputability, relativity, loss and causation before a claim for damages can be successful. Each of these elements needs to be alleged and – if contested – proven by the claimant.

The Court of Appeal held that while the 2007 Commission Decision established that subsidiaries of the elevator manufacturers engaged in unlawful conduct which can be imputed to those entities, it does not automatically mean that claimants suffered loss due to competition law infringements. The bundling of claims by EWD through assignments does not change the fact that the claims brought forward by EWD are individual claims. These claims should be individually considered. Relying on the European principle of effectiveness, the Court of Appeal was prepared to assume that sales or service contracts entered into during the cartel period were affected by the cartel. However, that does not relieve the claimant from the burden to allege and prove the quantum of damages and causal link.

The Court of Appeal held that EWD simply failed to provide sufficient facts to substantiate its allegation that each of the assignors from whom EWD had acquired its claims had in fact been affected by the cartel. More specifically, the Court of Appeal considered that EWD failed to provide concrete information showing which party purchased which products from which manufacturer for which amount. According to the judgment, EWD could not content itself with providing unstructured aggregated data to the court and the defendants. Importantly, EWD’s argument that defendants should have searched for relevant information themselves was rejected. The Court of Appeal also held that since the assignment documentation referred to contracts entered into with the defendants only, EWD could not claim damages for loss caused by other elevator manufacturers that were not a defendant in the proceedings ("umbrella claims").

Finally, the Court mentioned that it had considered whether or not it should provide EWD with another opportunity to substantiate its claims. However, the Court held that in light of the principles of due process EWD should not be given another opportunity, given that EWD had already had several opportunities to substantiate its claims, had persisted in its procedural posture and the oral hearing on appeal had already taken place.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

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