umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Belgian competition authority upholds licence refusal to football club White Star

Belgian competition authority upholds licence refusal to football clu

Belgian competition authority upholds licence refusal to football club White Star

02.08.2016 NL law

On 14 July 2016, the Belgian Competition Authority ("BCA") concluded that a refusal to grant a licence to football club Royal White Star Bruxelles, which would allow it to participate in the first division of the Belgian football league, did not infringe competition law. Furthermore, the BCA found that there were not enough grounds to justify provisional measures.

During the 2015-2016 football season in Belgium, White Star won the second division competition. Consequently, it should have been allowed to participate in the Belgian first division (1A) in 2016-2017. However, the licence committee of the Belgian football association (KBVB/URBSFA) refused to grant the necessary licence because White Star did not meet some of the requirements laid down in the regulations of the football association. White Star appealed to the Belgian Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CBAS"), which equally declined to grant the licence, this time because White Star did not meet the financial stability criteria ("the principle of continuity") in the regulation of the Belgian football association.

White Star requested the BCA to impose provisional measures, so it could start integrating into division 1A. It alleged that the football association and CBAS abused their dominant position(s) by engaging in discriminatory treatment. The BCA declared the request for provisory measures admissible but unfounded.

A novel aspect of the decision is that while the BCA recognised that the CBAS was not an 'association of undertakings', its award in effect would implement a regulation enacted by an association of undertakings, i.e. the Belgian football association. Therefore, the arbitral award is attributable to the football association and can potentially constitute a restrictive practice. Consequently, the BCA can review the arbitral award's conformity with the competition rules.

The College reviewed the KBVB/URBSFA licence regulation, including the principle of continuity. This principle implies that when considering licensing decisions, the responsible bodies need to take into account whether the football club concerned will be able to fulfill its financial obligations in the next season. The BCA considered that the regulation pursued a legitimate interest and was compliant with competition law.

Subsequently, the College found that White Star was not treated in a discriminatory manner compared to other football clubs that also suffered financial difficulties but did obtain a licence.

Another interesting feature of the decision is that the BCA considered an alternative measure on its own motion, not requested by the plaintiff, consisting of the possible integration of White Star into division 1B (the former division 2) instead of 1A. For the same reasons, this alternative was rejected.

Finally, the BCA performed a balance of interest test which it had not done as explicitly until now. It considered that even if there would have been grounds to grant provisional measures, the interests of other clubs would have been gravely injured for several reasons.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice clarifies the legality of royalty payments in the event of revocation or non-infringement of the licensed patent 
  2. General Court confirms fines imposed on the basis of economic continuity in maritime hose cartel 
  3. European Commission imposes record cartel fine on truck manufacturers for price fixing 
  4. European Commission deems support measures in favour of Dutch football clubs in line with State aid rules 
  5. Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages arising from antitrust infringements committed by their subsidiaries 
  6. ACM lowered fines in the pepper cartel case 
  7. Dutch Supreme Court confirms the availability of a passing-on defence in antitrust damages litigation 
  8. Brussels Court of Appeal rules that concerted lobbying efforts of cement producers do not breach competition law 
  9. Belgian competition authority upholds licence refusal to football club White Star

Source: Competition Law Newsletter August 2016

Team

Related news

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
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

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

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more