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

18.02.2019 NL law
Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Short Reads - As it stands, the UK will exit the European Union at midnight on 29 March 2019. Therefore, businesses within the UK, or with trade relations with the UK, would be best advised to assume that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. The exchange of personal data  within the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a no-deal Brexit, the GDPR will cease to be applicable in the UK upon its EU exit.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring