Short Reads

Access to the file in Dutch competition procedures: too little too late?

Access to the file in Dutch competition procedures

Access to the file in Dutch competition procedures: too little too late?

09.01.2020 NL law

Companies beware: the ACM’s and European Commission’s approach to access to the file are not aligned. According to an interim relief judge, the ACM cannot be forced to grant a company access to a broader set of documents in competition procedures. A potential error in the administrative procedure can be remedied before a court at a later stage. This is different to the right to access to the Commission’s file during administrative procedures, as acknowledged in EU case law.

 

In summary proceedings, a company claimed fuller access to the ACM file than the subset it was originally granted access to. The civil interim relief judge ruled that Dutch administrative law does not provide for a legally enforceable obligation on the ACM to grant access to its entire file. According to the judge, there was no need to interfere because any violation of the principle of equality of arms can be remedied before the administrative appeals court at a later stage.

Discussion concerning the scope of the file to which the ACM grants access to companies under investigation is an ongoing phenomenon in the Netherlands. Generally, the ACM only provides access to a small subset of the entire set of documents it had access to in competition investigations.

Access to the file of competition authorities is a procedural step to protect companies’ rights of defence in sanction proceedings (principally under Article 6 ECHR) and to apply the principle of equality of arms. It provides companies the opportunity to examine evidence in the authority’s file and make known their views on the truth and relevance of the facts relied on by the authority and on the allegations made against them.

The right to access all documents that may be relevant to the defence during the administrative proceedings has long been acknowledged by EU courts. According to EU courts, an infringement of the right of access to the Commission’s file during the administrative procedure cannot be remedied by obtaining such access during the judicial proceedings. Such belated access to the file would not return a company to the situation in which it would have been if it had been able to rely on those documents during the administrative procedure. It is for this reason that the Commission, for example, grants companies access to its entire file.

However, this EU case law did not motivate the civil judge to interfere with the Dutch legal system and introduce an obligation for the ACM to grant access to a broader set of documents than the limited selection the ACM granted access to. Different to the EU case law, the judge ruled that any flaws which occurred at earlier stages in the procedure (such as a mistaken refusal to grant access to documents) can be remedied before a court at a later stage. The judge therefore dismissed the claim.

Even if this possibility of delayed access may seem too little too late, companies should take note of this current difference in approach between the Commission’s and the ACM’s competition procedures.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of January 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

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