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

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

Read more

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

Read more

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Termination of an agreement: compelling grounds?

Short Reads - When does a reason given for termination of an agreement qualify as a compelling ground? That was the central question in the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 29 March 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:446). Depending on the nature of the agreement and the circumstances of the case, termination may only take place under certain conditions, e.g. only on compelling grounds. 

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring