Short Reads

Limburg District Court accepted jurisdiction in damages claim against immunity applicants

Limburg District Court accepted jurisdiction in damages claim against immunity applicants

Limburg District Court accepted jurisdiction in damages claim against immunity applicants

01.04.2015

On 25 February 2015, the District Court of Limburg ("District Court") rendered a judgment on various preliminary issues in an antitrust damage case between Deutsche Bahn and a number of producers of prestressing steel. The judgment confirms that, in general, Dutch courts consider themselves competent to rule on damages claims against all alleged cartel participants, even when they are foreign immunity applicants, if a Dutch "anchor" is amongst the defendants.

In the main proceedings, Deutsche Bahn claimed the defendants, including German immunity applicants DWK and Saarstahl, are liable for any damage they may have caused due to their Article 101 infringement (See Commission Decision COMP/38.344). The defendants filed various preliminary motions, including a motion to declare lack of jurisdiction and a request for disclosure.

The District Court dismissed DWK's and Saarstahl's motion to declare lack of jurisdiction because it found a sufficiently close connection between Deutsche Bahn's claims against Netherlands-based anchor defendants Nedri Spanstaal and Hit Groep on the one hand, and the claims against DWK and Saarstahl on the other. In establishing this close connection, the Court took into consideration that, according to the Commission decision, all defendants  took part in a "single and continuous infringement" of competition law and that they "had a common goal" in carrying out their arrangements.

Furthermore, DWK and Saarstahl argued that under the recently adopted, but not yet implemented, Actions for Damages Directive, immunity applicants such as themselves cannot be held jointly and severally liable for all damage caused by the cartel, but only for damage incurred by their own customers. The District Court rejected this argument, considering that even if it were to accept that the immunity applicants are only liable for damage caused to their own customers, the case against the immunity applicants still had a sufficiently close connection with the claims against the other defendants.

The District Court furthermore dismissed the defendants' request for disclosure of invoice data and assignment deeds of the claims. The District Court ruled that the defendants did not yet have a legitimate interest in disclosure of these documents. Such disclosure would be “premature” as the relevance of these documents in assessing the defendants’ liability will depend on the substantiation of the parties in the main proceedings. 

Team

Related news

18.02.2019 NL law
Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Short Reads - As it stands, the UK will exit the European Union at midnight on 29 March 2019. Therefore, businesses within the UK, or with trade relations with the UK, would be best advised to assume that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. The exchange of personal data  within the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a no-deal Brexit, the GDPR will cease to be applicable in the UK upon its EU exit.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring