Short Reads

District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation

District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration

District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation

07.07.2016 NL law

On 25 May 2016, the District Court of Rotterdam (“the Court“) ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear one of the elevator follow-on damages litigation claims. The Court declined to apply the arbitration clauses relied upon by the defendants, taking the view that those clauses did not cover antitrust damages claims.

The case has its origins in a 2007 infringement decision, in which the Commission fined several elevator manufacturers for participating in anticompetitive practices. Following that decision, 41 housing associations joined forces and established Stichting De Glazen Lift (“DGL“), to which they assigned their alleged antitrust damages claims. DGL subsequently initiated damages proceedings before the Court. In turn, defendants Kone B.V., ThyssenKrupp Liften B.V., Otis B.V. and Mitsubishi Elevator Europe B.V. (“the elevator manufacturers“) contested the jurisdiction of the Court. The elevator manufacturers based this motion on the arbitration clauses contained in the supply and service agreements that they had concluded with the housing associations during the relevant period.

Referring to the Court of Justice’s judgment in CDC HP, the Court dismissed the motion. In CDC HP, the Court of Justice had ruled that jurisdiction clauses can only validly derogate from the EU jurisdictional rules if the clause clearly refers to disputes concerning liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law. The Court applied this reasoning by analogy to the arbitration clauses invoked by the elevator manufacturers. Given that these clauses broadly subjected “every dispute arising between parties” to arbitration, the housing associations could not reasonably foresee antitrust damages claims falling within their scope. Therefore, according to the Court, the arbitration clauses did not apply.

The Court further considered that even if DGL’s claims were to fall within the scope of the arbitration clauses, their application would nevertheless be unacceptable according to the reasonableness and fairness principle under Dutch law.  According to the Court, application of the arbitration clauses would be contrary to the principle of effectiveness of EU law, since the housing associations would have to verify for thousands of elevators whether claims should be brought before a district court or an arbitration panel.

Several Dutch courts have already rejected the applicability of arbitration clauses in follow-on damages proceedings (e.g. ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2014:3190 and ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:3006). The judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam shows that (i) the phrasing of the arbitration clauses needs to specifically cover antitrust damages claims, but (ii) even then Dutch courts may decline to refer the dispute to arbitration due to reasonableness and fairness considerations, depending on the specifics of the case.

Related news

20.11.2018 NL law
Seminar 'Personal data from a broader perspective: overlap inside and outside the privacy domain'

Seminar - On 20 November 2018, Stibbe will host a seminar on privacy. Several Stibbe lawyers will discuss personal data from a broader perspective and the overlap that can occur inside and outside the legal privacy domain.

Read more

14.11.2018 NL law
Totstandkoming StAB-verslag niet in strijd met artikel 6 EVRM

Short Reads - De totstandkoming van deskundigenberichten van de StAB is niet in strijd met het in artikel 6 EVRM gewaarborgde recht op een eerlijk proces, zo oordeelde de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Afdeling) in haar uitspraak van 17 oktober 2018. De Afdeling komt tot dit oordeel na een uitgebreide behandeling van de wijze waarop deskundigenberichten van de Stichting Advisering Bestuursrechtspraak voor Milieu en Ruimtelijke Ordening (StAB) tot stand komen.

Read more

16.11.2018 NL law
Tax Alert: Adoption 2019 Tax Plan and ATAD 1 proposal by the Dutch Lower House of Parliament

Short Reads - Further to the several tax proposals released by the Dutch government on Budget Day last September (the 'Proposals' –  see also our Tax Alerts of 20 September 2018 and 16 October 2018), on 15 November 2018 the Lower House of Parliament has adopted the 2019 Tax Plan and the proposed implementation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive ('ATAD 1') per 1 January 2019. In this Tax Alert we will provide you with a short update in respect of the Proposals.

Read more

14.11.2018 NL law
Het Europese PAS-arrest: een programmatische aanpak is toelaatbaar, maar PAS op!

Short Reads - Op 7 november 2018 heeft het Europese Hof van Justitie de prejudiciële vragen van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak beantwoord over de toelaatbaarheid onder de Habitatrichtlijn van het Programma Aanpak Stikstof. De eerste reacties op dit arrest bevatten twijfels over de houdbaarheid van het PAS: het houden van vee wordt moelijker en PAS-vergunningen kunnen niet worden verleend of moeten worden ingetrokken.

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