Articles

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

Team

Related news

04.01.2019 NL law
Partial fine reduction for Deutsche Telekom and Slovak Telekom for abuse of dominance

Short Reads - The General Court recently clarified that to establish a margin squeeze in the case of positive margins, the Commission needs to prove the exclusionary effects of the dominant company's pricing practices. It also indicated that in cases of refusal to grant access, it is not always necessary to establish the indispensability of the access.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Short Reads - Two recent publications confirm that it is possible for companies to cooperate with a European Commission investigation and still comply with the data protection rules. It is also possible for the Commission to deviate from certain data protection obligations in the interest of a competition law investigation. The tightrope between data protection and Commission investigations may not be as rigid as initially feared.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decision

Short Reads - The General Court recently dismissed the appeal brought by Canal+ against the decision of the European Commission making the commitments of Paramount legally binding. In 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections alleging that certain geo-blocking clauses in licensing agreements between film studios and pay-TV broadcasters had the object of restricting cross-border competition.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Guess what, online branding restrictions are on the Commission's radar

Short Reads - Companies are probably aware of the Commission's eagerness to clamp down on online resale price maintenance and geo-blocking restrictions. The recent fine for vertical restraints by clothing company Guess marks a new dot on the Commission's radar. Restrictions on retailers using a supplier's brand names for online search advertising purposes are just as much a no-go.

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