Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that national courts should apply the same standard of review to Phase-I and Phase-II merger decisions

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that national courts should apply the same standard of review to Phase-I and Phase-II merger decisions

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that national courts should apply the same standard of review to Phase-I and Phase-II merger decisions

03.11.2015 NL law

On 6 October 2015, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ("CBb") fully upheld an earlier ruling by the District Court of Rotterdam [see our June 2012 newsletter]. In essence, the appeal process was initiated by Ziggo B.V. (now a part of Liberty Global  plc.) against the ACM's 2008 conditional Phase-I decision, clearing the creation of a joint venture ("JV") between KPN and Reggefiber. With this judgment, the ACM's underlying decision has become final.

In the judgment at hand, the CBb for the first time considered whether courts should apply the same standard of review to (the legality of) the ACM's Phase-I and Phase-II merger decisions. In its cross-appeal, the ACM attempted to argue that since it is bound to apply different substantive tests in its Phase-I and Phase-II decisions, each should warrant a separate standard of review by the courts. The CBb, however, dismissed the ACM's arguments and held that the same (thorough) standard of review should apply, regardless of the phase in which the ACM decision has been concluded.

On appeal, Ziggo argued that certain facts had come to light after the ACM issued its clearance decision that cast doubt on its framework of assessment and ultimately on the remedies imposed on the JV in Phase-I in 2008. Despite the apparent setback for the ACM as regards the standard of review, the CBb dismissed Ziggo's appeal. Since the court is bound to review the ACM's decision based on the facts available to the ACM at the time (i.e. an ex tunc  review), subsequent market developments are irrelevant for the lawfulness of the decision. Ultimately, the court held that Ziggo failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the information available to the ACM at the time was unreliable or otherwise insufficient to clear the JV subject to the conditions imposed in Phase-I.

It is interesting to note that since its 2008 decision, the ACM unconditionally cleared the acquisition of sole control by KPN over Reggefiber on 31 October 2014 after a Phase-II investigation. That decision is subject to appeal before the Rotterdam District Court.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2015. Other articles in this newsletter:

Back to top


Related news

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

02.07.2018 EU law
General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

Short Reads - On 20 June 2018, the General Court rendered its judgment in two connected appeals submitted by České dráhy, the Czech Railways Operator, challenging two dawn raid decisions by the European Commission. Based on arguments concerning the scope of the investigation, the Court annulled in part the first dawn raid decision and fully upheld the second dawn raid decision.

Read more

29.06.2018 EU law
Un dossier de soumission imparfait peut-il être rectifié par le paiement d’une amende ?

Articles - Dans l’arrêt du 28 février 2018, la Cour de justice donne son avis sur la possibilité pour un soumissionnaire de rectifier, pendant la phase de sélection et moyennant paiement d’une amende, son dossier de soumission imparfait par un ajout et/ou commentaire. La Cour précise que cette mesure n’est, en principe, valable que si la nature de l’irrégularité constatée permet une rectification ultérieure et que le montant de l’amende est proportionnel à l’importance de l’irrégularité constatée. 

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