Short Reads

Changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands

Changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands

Changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands

02.12.2015 NL law

On 8 October 2015, the Dutch ministers of Justice and Economic affairs published a proposal for an act implementing the EU Antitrust Damages Directive (the “Proposal“). The Proposal  would see the Damages Directive implemented in new separate sections of the Dutch Civil Code (“DCC“) and the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (“DCCP“) that will apply specifically to EU competition law infringements.

The Proposal largely follows the provisions of the Directive. These provisions concern inter alia, the tortious nature of EU competition law infringements and the presumption that they cause damage, joint and several liability for joint actions, the validity of a passing-on defence and an evidentiary presumption that overcharges are passed on to indirect purchasers (see our April 2014 Competition law newsletter).

In line with the Directive, the proposal states that immunity applicants will only be jointly and severally liable towards their own direct and indirect customers and suppliers, unless claimants cannot obtain redress from any of the other cartel participants.

The Proposal adopts the provisions on the protection of leniency and settlement submissions of the Damages Directive. Disclosure cannot be ordered for leniency documents or settlement submissions,  and such documents cannot be used as evidence. Certain other documents, such as replies to requests for information, can only be disclosed after the competition authority has closed its proceedings. With regard to the disclosure of evidence, the explanatory memorandum describes that the current system already provides for broader disclosure than required on the basis of the Directive.

In line with the current limitation periods for torts, the Proposal suggests a subjective limitation period of five years and an objective limitation period of twenty years. Following the Directive, the subjective limitation period only starts to run when the infringement has ended and the claimant is aware of the behaviour, infringer and damage. The subjective limitation period is interrupted when an investigatory act is performed, or proceedings are initiated, by a competition authority. Also in case of a consensual dispute resolution process the limitation period is interrupted. In that case a new limitation period of a maximum of three years starts to run.

The Proposal does not contain provisions on the prevention of overcompensation of claimants and multiple liability (Articles 12(1) and 15 of the Damages Directive). According to the explanatory memorandum, the legislator considers that this is already sufficiently safeguarded under Dutch law.

The post Changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands is a post of Stibbeblog.nl

Team

Related news

26.09.2018 BE law
Eerlijke marktpraktijken, slechtmaking en de vrijheid van meningsuiting

Articles - Op 1 maart 2018, oordeelde het hof van beroep te Brussel[1] dat een aan derden verzonden e-mailbericht waarin werd meegedeeld dat alle samenwerking met de betrokken partij was beëindigd op grond van het feit dat de door deze laatste geleverde diensten waren bekritiseerd wegens hun slechte kwaliteit, en dit terwijl er hieromtrent een procedure hangende is, een daad van slechtmaking is, verboden door artikel VI.104 WER. Hetzelfde geldt voor een e-mailbericht aan derden, waarin een bepaalde persoon wordt afgedaan als een “individu zonder scrupules”.

Read more

26.09.2018 BE law
Pratiques honnêtes du marché, dénigrement et la liberté d’expression

Articles - Par jugement du 1er mars 2018, la cour d’appel de Bruxelles[1] a déclaré qu’un courriel adressé à des tiers, indiquant qu’il aurait été mis fin à toute collaboration avec la partie en cause au motif que les prestations fournies par celle-ci auraient été critiquées en raison de leur piètre qualité alors qu’une procédure est pendante à cet égard, constitue un acte de dénigrement interdit au sens de l’article VI.104. du CDE. Il en est de même d’un courriel adressé à des tiers, indiquant qu’une personne identifiée est un «  individu sans scrupules ».

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