Short Reads

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies cannot be held liable for damages

02.08.2016 NL law

Dutch District Court ruled that parent companies are not liable for damages arising from antitrust infringements committed by their subsidiaries.

On 20 July 2016, the District Court of the Middle-Netherlands dismissed a EUR 30 million antitrust damages action filed by claim vehicle East West Debt B.V. ("EWD") against five Dutch elevator manufacturers and their ultimate parent companies.

EWD based its claim on a 2007 Commission Decision, in which the defendants were held liable for a competition law infringement that took place on the Dutch elevator market. Five Dutch companies were fined for taking part in the infringement, while four of their ultimate parent companies were held liable for the fine on the basis of the "presumption of decisive influence". This presumption entails that if an (indirect) parent company owns 100% of the shares in a subsidiary, it is presumed to exercise decisive influence over the commercial behaviour of that subsidiary. Under EU competition law, legal responsibility for the infringement and the related fine can be attributed to both the subsidiary that actually participated in the cartel and the parent company or companies that exercised decisive influence over that subsidiary.

The District Court ruled that this competition law doctrine of parental liability does not  extend to civil claims for damages. National law, and not EU competition law, governs the question whether the "corporate veil" can be pierced. As a matter of Dutch civil law, parent companies are not liable for wrongdoings committed by their subsidiaries. While there are special circumstances in which the corporate veil can be pierced, according to the District Court EWD had not stated sufficient facts to substantiate a damage claim against the parent companies.

The District Court also found that EWD failed to provide the requisite evidence to support its claims vis-à-vis the Dutch subsidiaries. More specifically, the Court considered that EWD failed to show that the claimants which EWD represents had purchased elevators and related services during the period in which the infringement took place. According to the judgment, EWD could not content itself by merely submitting aggregated data. At a minimum, EWD should have set out the basis for each specific claim, identifying the conditions under which the elevators and related services had been purchased. The District Court also noted that EWD should have submitted the assignment documentation to show that the claimants had assigned their damage claims to EWD.

The District Court of the Middle-Netherlands is the first Dutch court to rule on the question whether under Dutch law parent companies are liable to pay damages for infringements committed by their subsidiaries. The judgment also shows that claim vehicles like EWD must properly substantiate each individual claim they present in court. 

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

03.10.2019 NL law
It's in the details: HSBC fine quashed for insufficient reasoning

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the EUR 33.6 million fine imposed on banking group HSBC for its participation in the euro interest rates derivatives cartel. Full annulment was granted based on the Commission's failure to provide sufficiently detailed reasoning for the first step of the fine calculation, establishing the value of sales. As the value of sales could not be established in a straightforward way, the Commission used a proxy. When doing so, the Commission needs to properly explain its reasoning to allow the companies fined to understand how it arrived at the proxy. 

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The postman will no longer ring twice: Minister unblocks postal merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently blocked postal operator PostNL's acquisition of its only national competitor, Sandd, because this would create "a monopolist on the postal delivery market". However, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has overruled the ACM's decision on grounds of public interest. Invoking industrial policy or public interest reasons for merger clearance seems to be catching on.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The ACM has to pay: moral damages awarded to real estate traders

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) needs to cough up a total of EUR 120,000 in moral damages to three real estate traders. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal (CBb) agreed with the real estate traders that the annulment of the ACM's cartel decisions against them was insufficient compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of the length of the procedure and the press coverage of their cases.

Read more

02.10.2019 NL law
Politie aansprakelijk voor schietpartij Alphen aan den Rijn

Short Reads - De politie is aansprakelijk voor de schietpartij in een winkelcentrum Alphen aan den Rijn in 2011. Dat oordeelt de Hoge Raad in zijn arrest van 20 september 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1409). Bij deze schietpartij vonden zes mensen de dood en raakten zestien mensen gewond. De dader doodde ook zichzelf. Nabestaanden van dodelijke slachtoffers, slachtoffers die gewond raakten en winkeliers spreken de politie aan tot schadevergoeding. Zij voeren aan dat de politie de vergunning voor de wapens die de man gebruikte, niet had mogen verlenen.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
Margrethe Vestager to play matchmaker between enforcement and regulation

Short Reads - Current Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager may face even greater challenges in the next European Commission. President-elect Ursula von der Leyen has not only nominated Vestager for a second term as Commissioner for Competition, but has also asked her to coordinate the European Commission's digital agenda. As a result, Vestager may soon be tackling digital issues through competition enforcement whilst also proposing additional regulation to deal with these (and related) issues pre-emptively.

Read more

02.10.2019 NL law
Dutch national police service liable for unlawful granting of firearms permit

Short Reads - In a recent decision (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1409), the Supreme Court has decided that the Dutch national police force is liable for damage suffered by victims of a shooting which took place in a shopping centre in 2011; an event that shocked the Netherlands. The Supreme Court held that the police had unlawfully granted a permit for the firearms used in the shooting.

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