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

Court applies Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims

Court applies Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims

Court applies Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims

06.06.2019 NL law

On May 1, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in two judgments (1) and (2) that Dutch law applies to all follow-on damages claims resulting from the international air freight cartel, mainly citing practical considerations for its decision.

This decision shows that courts are willing to take a pragmatic approach to the complicated question of determining the applicable law to international follow-on damages claims. The claimant-friendly judgment will be subject to direct appeal.

The decisions were rendered in proceedings initiated by indirect purchasers of air freight services against the airlines that are alleged to have participated in a price-fixing cartel between 1999 and 2006.

The Court had to decide which legal system (or systems) would govern the civil law damages claims of these indirect purchasers. Since the anticompetitive conduct occurred before the Rome II Regulation entered into force in January 2009, this question had to be adjudicated under the Dutch private international law rule which provides that claims arising out of an infringement of competition law are "governed by the law of the state where the competitive act affected the competitive relationships".

Therefore, the core question with regard to every individual claimant's claim was in which state the air freight cartel had allegedly produced anticompetitive effects. In this regard, the court noted that the alleged cartel involved an agreement which affected prices and competitive conditions in the global air freight market. According to the court, this worldwide impact on competitive relationships made the rule, which attempts to precisely identify the affected market, difficult and impractical to apply.

Therefore, the Court decided to adopt a more practical approach. Remarkably, it ruled that since the cartel had a worldwide impact, including in the Netherlands, Dutch law could be, and in fact had to be, applied to all individual claims. The court justified this approach with reference to the principles of due process ("goede procesorde") and the European law principle of effectiveness.

The Court's claimant-friendly approach favours pragmatic considerations over the applicable rules.

The potential impact of this judgment is limited to situations in which the Rome II Regulation does not apply. For claims resulting from anticompetitive conduct that took place after 11 January 2009, the Rome II Regulation already allows claimants to apply the law of the country in which they bring their claims, provided that this country's market was "directly and substantially" affected by the relevant anticompetitive conduct. The approach adopted by the court in Amsterdam somewhat reflects this possibility.

The Court was aware of its pioneering approach, and granted parties the right to directly appeal its decision. The Court of Appeal will have to decide whether the pragmatic approach adopted by the Court can be upheld on appeal.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 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