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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more