Short Reads

Amsterdam District Court ruled that EU Commission is best placed to decide on disclosure of its cartel decisions

Amsterdam District Court ruled that EU Commission is best placed to decide on disclosure of its cartel decisions

Amsterdam District Court ruled that EU Commission is best placed to decide on disclosure of its cartel decisions

01.04.2015

In a judgment of 27 March 2015, the District Court of Amsterdam ("District Court") dismissed claims from claim vehicle Equilib that certain addressees of the European Commission air cargo decision should disclose a confidential version of this decision and documents from files of various non-European competition authorities. The District Court furthermore ruled that claims from the airlines that would require Equilib to hand over a large amount of documents in relation to its claims were "premature".

Equilib had argued it needed the unredacted Commission decision and the other documents to substantiate further its damage claims. Equilib suggested to ring-fence the confidential version around itself and its advisors, after a redaction of references to leniency corporate statements. The airlines stated that all the necessary information could be found in the publicly available summary of the decision.

The District Court decided that Equilib had not sufficiently substantiated why it needed the information in the confidential decision and the other documents, taking into account the information already available in the summary. Furthermore, the District Court considered that on the basis of EU law, the rights of addressees as well as non-addressees of the decision should be safeguarded, which would make the redaction process of a 300 page decision an extensive, time-consuming and burdensome task. The European Commission is better equipped for this task, and its publication process has reached an advanced stage.

The District Court also rejected claims from the airlines that Equilib should hand over, among others, a large amount of transport documents or "airway bills". The District Court considered that at this stage of the proceedings it is up to Equilib to substantiate further its claims, especially with regard to the alleged damage and causal link. Equilib should detail the specific routes, flights and actions for which it seeks damages. By this substantiation of Equilib the airlines may receive the information they are looking for, which would make their claim unnecessary.

In another damage claim against the airlines, instituted by claim vehicle SCC, the District Court reached a similar conclusion with regard to the airway bills sought. The District Court furthermore decided that the appropriate time to rule on the request from the airlines to stay the proceedings, awaiting the outcome of the European proceedings against the air cargo decision, would be after the airlines submit their statement of defence.

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring