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

Dutch Supreme Court confirms availability of passing-on defence

Dutch Supreme Court confirms availability of passing-on defence

Dutch Supreme Court confirms availability of passing-on defence

02.08.2016 NL law

On 8 July 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court delivered its judgment concerning an ongoing discussion in antitrust damages litigation: the availability of a "passing-on" defence.

Dutch courts have taken varying approaches in determining whether an infringer can invoke as a defence against a claim for damages the fact that the claimant was able to raise the downstream prices to its customers and thus "passed on" all or part of the alleged overcharge resulting from the infringement of competition law. In its judgment, the Supreme Court confirms that passing on is a valid defence under Dutch law and gives further guidelines on its application.

The case concerns a civil claim by TenneT against ABB, following on from the European Commission's 2007 infringement decision in which ABB was fined for its participation in the Gas Insulated Switchgear cartel. TenneT claimed that as a result of the infringement it paid an overcharge for the GIS-installation purchased from ABB in 1998. ABB argued that TenneT did not suffer any loss because it passed on the costs of the GIS-installation to its customers.

ABB's passing-on defence was rejected by the District Court for the Eastern Netherlands in January 2013. The District Court viewed the passing-on defence as a specific application of the doctrine ofvoordeelstoerekening (cf. in German: "Vorteilsausgleichung"). According to the District Court, the doctrine's requirement of reasonableness stood in the way of successful reliance on the passing-on defence: it would not be reasonable to allow ABB to rely on the passing-on defence because ABB might escape liability as a result [see our March 2013 newsletter]. In September 2014, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled that ABB could invoke a passing-on defence. Unlike the District Court, the Court of Appeal regarded passing-on as an issue that directly affects the level of damages that can be awarded to a claimant and concluded that TenneT's claim reasonably comprised the overcharge minus any part of the overcharge that it passed on to its customers. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that if indirect customers do not sue ABB for any overcharges that were passed on to them, ABB might escape liability for some of the loss it caused [see our October 2014 newsletter].

In its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that as a matter of Dutch law, the passing-on defence is available. In this context, the Court refers to the EU Antitrust Damages Directive, which states that Member States must ensure that the defendant in an action for damages can invoke a passing-on defence. According to the Supreme Court, the approaches taken by the District Court and by the Court of Appeal should have led to substantially the same result. The Supreme Court goes on to say that courts are free to choose how they qualify the passing-on defence. In any event , the benefit that is conferred onto the claimant in connection with the infringement will be taken into account in the determination of the damages, provided that it is reasonable to do so. And in both approaches, the court can decide that the burden of proving pass-on lies with the defendant.

For a more detailed report on the judgment, see Stibbe's Commercial Litigation Blog.

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