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

European Commission deems support measures in favour of Dutch football clubs in line with State aid rules

European Commission deems support measures in favour of Dutch footbal

European Commission deems support measures in favour of Dutch football clubs in line with State aid rules

02.08.2016 NL law

On 4 July 2016, the European Commission decided that support measures granted by several Dutch municipalities to football clubs do not breach State aid rules. 

This marks the end of a long in-depth investigation into these measures started by the Commission in 2013.

In the years 2011 and 2012 some Dutch football clubs experienced financial problems, namely PSV, Den Bosch, MVV Maastricht, NEC and Willem II. The municipalities of these clubs decided to take measures to support them. The support these clubs received from their respective municipalities took different forms.

The municipality of Eindhoven entered into a sale and leaseback transaction with PSV. This transaction entailed that the municipality of Eindhoven (i) bought the land on which the Philips stadium and a training block were built for a price of EUR 48,385,000 and (ii) leased it back to the football club.

The other four clubs received direct financial aid from their respective municipalities. The municipality of Maastricht for instance waived a claim of EUR1.7 million on MVV Maastricht and bought the football stadium and training grounds for EUR 1.85 million. The municipality of Tilburg lowered the rent of the stadium with retroactive effect, resulting in a total advantage for Willem II of EUR 2.4 million.

However, there were conditions attached to the aid granted to the four clubs. The football clubs contributed significantly to the costs of their restructuring and agreed to limit the negative effects of the support measures on the market for example by reducing the number of employees, the number of registered players and players' wages.

The Commission found that the transaction between the municipality of Eindhoven and PSV had been carried out on terms acceptable to a market investor, and therefore did not constitute aid. In its assessment, the Commission took account of an independent external valuation report that was used by the municipality as a basis of the transaction. However, the Commission concluded that the support measures to the other football clubs constituted State aid, which is compatible with the European market since it complies with the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty due to the conditions attached to the aid.

As a result of the Commission's decision, no State aid has to be recovered by the municipalities from the football clubs in question. This stands in stark contrast with the case about the State aid granted to Spanish football clubs. Spain has to recover large amount of aid from Spanish football clubs.

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