Short Reads

Commission decision used as point of reference in cartel damages case

Commission decision used as point of reference in cartel damages case

Commission decision used as point of reference in cartel damages case

06.06.2019 NL law

The Rotterdam District Court recently used the European Commission's cartel decision in the elevators case as a point of reference to determine the scope and effects of the cartel in follow-on damages proceedings brought against several elevator manufacturers.

However, this does not bring the case home yet as the court also pointed out that the claim vehicle DGL will still need to substantiate the potential damage caused by the cartel with sufficiently detailed data.

In 2007, the Commission fined five elevator manufacturers for operating a cartel on the Dutch market between 1998 and 2004. Following this decision, several purchasers of elevators started legal proceedings to recover the damage they allegedly suffered as a result of the anticompetitive agreements. Among them are 41 housing associations, which have transferred their claims to claim vehicle DGL. DGL started legal proceedings against the elevator manufacturers in 2013.

In an interim judgment of 29 May 2019 in the damages proceedings brought by DGL, the Rotterdam District Court ruled on the effect of this Commission decision in follow on-proceedings, in particular when it comes to determining the scope and effect of the cartel. The Court addressed the questions (i) whether the cartel covers the entire Dutch market or only several projects (scope of the cartel) and (ii) whether the cartel led to a price increase (effect of the cartel).

The defendants raised several arguments in support of their claim that the scope of the cartel was limited and that the illicit arrangements did not cover the entire Dutch market. They alleged that only a limited number of projects were allocated and that for some projects not all manufacturers were invited to participate in the tender. The Court ruled that the anticompetitive agreements covered in principle every possible project. While it was not necessary for the manufacturers to divide a particular project (because it was clear from the outset to which party it would be assigned), this does not exclude the possibility for allocation. If not all manufacturers participated in a tender, that simply means that the agreement for that moment only directly covered the tender participants. And if a housing association had only requested an offer from one manufacturer, it is - considering the high common market share of the cartel participants - very plausible that the particular manufacturer took into account the information that was illegally exchanged by the other cartel participants.

In addition, the defendants argued that the infringement had no price-increasing effect. Again the Court referred to the Commission decision, that established that the purpose of the cartel was to increase prices and that the cartel participants succeeded in this. The Court found the fact that the manufacturers sometimes did not comply with their own agreements insufficient to assume that the purported price increase was undone. The infringement was extensive, long-lasting and covered the entire Dutch market. The District Court considered it likely that the cartel had a price-increasing effect and caused damage to the contracting parties of the manufacturers.

Similar to the judgment of the Amsterdam District Court in the trucks case [see our article: "Court applies Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims"], the Rotterdam District Court ruled that DGL will still need to argue and substantiate for each of the housing associations that there is a reasonable chance it suffered damage as a result of the cartel. DGL must submit into the proceedings further evidence that each housing association purchased elevators and/or related devices and services from a cartel participant during the time period the cartel was operated.

 

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

Team

Related news

24.09.2020 BE law
Stibbe hosts a webinar on dawn raids organised by IBJ/IJE

Seminar - On 24 September 2020, several Stibbe lawyers ​​​​​explain the rights and obligations of companies when confronted with announced or unannounced raids. What do to when, for example, tax authorities, the competition authorities, police services or a bailiff are at your doorstep?

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

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