umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Articles

New Dutch "Authority for Consumers and Markets" becomes operational

New Dutch "Authority for Consumers and Markets" becomes operational

New Dutch "Authority for Consumers and Markets" becomes operational

02.04.2013

From 1 April 2013 a new enforcement authority is active in the Netherlands: the Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM"). The ACM is the result of a merger between the Netherlands Competition Authority (Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit), the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority (Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit) and the Netherlands Consumer Authority (Consumentenautoriteit). Other governmental enforcement authorities like the Dutch Healthcare Authority (Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit) and the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (Autoriteit Financiële Markten) will continue to operate independently of the ACM.

On 26 February 2013, the Dutch Senate passed a bill that established the ACM (Instellingswet). The ACM has assumed the powers and tasks of the previously independent enforcement authorities and it is led by a board of three members presided by Chris Fonteijn, the former Chairman of the Dutch Competition Authority and the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority. The ACM will focus on three main themes: consumer protection, sector-specific regulation and competition oversight.

The ACM consists of seven directorates, the most relevant of which are the Directorate Competition (Directie Mededinging); the Directorate Energy (Directie Energie); the Directorate Telecommunications, Transport and Postal Services (Directie Telecom, Vervoer en Post); the Directorate Consumers (Directie Consumenten); and the Directorate Sanctions and Legal Affairs (Directie Sancties en Juridische Zaken). Noteworthy is that competition law enforcement on the energy markets is assumed by the Directorate Energy, while the energy market for consumers falls under the supervision of the Directorate Consumers. The Directorate Sanctions and Legal Affairs will be entrusted with the imposition of sanction decisions within the sphere of all Directorates.

The formal establishment of the ACM does not yet entail any changes as to the application of the Dutch Competition Act. Changes in and harmonization of the procedures and powers of the different divisions of the ACM will be brought about by separate legislation (Stroomlijningswet). It is envisioned that this additional legislation will enter into force on 1 January 2014 but it still has to go through the entire legislative process.

For now, the powers and procedures of the enforcement authorities will remain essentially the same. There is one exception. The ACM from now on possesses the power to issue binding instructions and impose fines up to €450.000 for infringements previously enforced by the Netherlands Consumer Authority. Previously, the Netherlands Consumer Authority could only issue fines up to €450.000 in cases concerning unfair trade practices. The maximum fine that could be imposed for all other infringements within its area of competence was €78.000. The Instellingswet sets a uniform maximum fine of €450.000 for all infringements that were previously enforced by the Netherlands Consumer Authority.

On 11 April 2013, the ACM will hold a press conference in which it will present its enforcement policies in more detail. In the meantime information about the ACM is available on its website www.acm.nl.

Team

Related news

08.04.2021 NL law
Voorzieningenrechter Afdeling: beroep van een niet-belanghebbende toch ontvankelijk wegens het Varkens in nood-arrest

Short Reads - De voorzieningenrechter van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State gaat in een recente uitspraak op voorhand uit van de ontvankelijkheid van een beroep van een persoon die een zienswijze heeft ingediend over een ontwerp-inpassingsplan. Dit terwijl de betreffende persoon geen feitelijke gevolgen van het plan ondervindt en dus geen belanghebbende is.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more