Articles

Rotterdam Court annulled cartel fine imposed on Dutch Association of General Practitioners

Rotterdam Court annulled cartel fine imposed on Dutch Association of General Practitioners

Rotterdam Court annulled cartel fine imposed on Dutch Association of General Practitioners

05.01.2016 NL law

In its judgment of 17 December 2015, the District Court of Rotterdam ("District Court") annulled the decision of the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") in which it imposed a fine on the Dutch Association of General Practitioners (Landelijke Huisartsen Vereniging; "LHV") for violating the Dutch cartel prohibition. 

Specifically, the Court found that the ACM had failed to substantiate how LHV's behaviour had the object of restricting competition.

LHV is a professional association accounting for 95% of Dutch general practitioners. In a decision of December 2011, the ACM held that LHV restricted competition by adopting recommendations on the establishment of new general practitioners. In these recommendations LHV advised its members to periodically examine whether a demand for new general practitioners exists and whether the local amount of patients justified the opening of a new practice. In this respect, LHV advised its local associations to "address permanent overcapacity of practitioners". LHV also advised its members to integrate this assessment in the application procedure for new local practitioners. The ACM held that these recommendations constituted a decision from an association of undertakings having the object to restrict competition. 

The ACM initially imposed a fine of EUR 7.7 million on LHV and also fined two of its executives. In its decision on LHV's administrative appeal of February 2014, the ACM reduced the fine imposed on LHV to EUR 5.9 million and revoked the fines imposed on LHV's executives [see our March 2014 newsletter].

Following an appeal from LHV, the District Court assessed whether LHV's recommendations constituted a restriction of competition by object. The District Court noted that the recommendations did not explicitly recommend addressing potential overcapacity of general practitioners through restrictive practices. The recommendations also did not contain any indication concerning an allowed number of patients per practitioner or an allowed number of practitioners. Therefore, the District Court disagreed with the ACM's reasoning that the recommendations entailed a quantitative restriction of competition. In addition, considering the relevant economic context, the District Court found that during the period of the infringement, health care insurers effectively had decisive influence on the admission of general practitioners. Consequently, LHV members could not have exerted restrictive influence on the establishment of new practitioners through their application procedures.

The District Court concluded that the recommendations, taking into account their wording, aim and economic context, did not constitute an object infringement. The judgment shows that Dutch courts are willing to critically assess the qualification of an alleged infringement as a restriction by object. The District Court's reference to the European Cartes Bancaires case [see our October 2014 newsletter] highlights that Dutch courts pay close attention to European developments in this respect.

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

Team

Related news

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

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