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 the availability of a passing-on defence in antitrust damages litigation

Dutch Supreme Court confirms the availability of a passing-on defence

Dutch Supreme Court confirms the availability of a passing-on defence in antitrust damages litigation

18.07.2016 NL law

Dutch Supreme Court confirms the availability of a passing-on defence in antitrust damages litigation

On 8 July 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court handed down a judgment concerning an ongoing discussion in antitrust damages litigation: the availability of a “passing-on” defence (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1483). 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 the application of this defence.

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 claims that as a result of the infringement it paid an overcharge for the GIS-installation it purchased from ABB in 1998. ABB argues 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 (ECLI:NL:RBONE:2013:BZ0403). According to the District Court, the passing-on defence should be viewed as a specific application of the doctrine of voordeelstoerekening (cf. in German: “Vorteilsausgleichung“). Under this doctrine, the defendant may offset a benefit that was conferred to the claimant against the damages owed for that same wrongdoing, provided there is an adequate causal link between the wrongdoing and the benefit and provided that taking account of the benefit is reasonable (Article 6:100 Dutch Civil Code). According to the District Court, it would not be reasonable to allow ABB to rely on the passing-on defence, as ABB might escape liability as a result.

ABB successfully appealed this judgment. In September 2014, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled that ABB could invoke a passing-on defence and concluded that TenneT’s claim (to be determined in a separate stage of proceedings) reasonably comprised the overcharge minus any part of the overcharge that it passed on to its customers (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2014:6766). Unlike the District Court, the Court of Appeal regarded passing-on as an issue that directly affects the level of the damages that can be awarded to a claimant. By passing the alleged overcharge on to his own customers, the claimant effectively reduces the loss he suffers. 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. However, according to the Court of Appeal that is not a concern of Dutch tort law, which is compensatory in nature.

TenneT then filed an appeal with the Dutch Supreme Court. According to TenneT, the passing-on defence should be assessed under the doctrine of voordeelstoerekening. Given the strict interpretation of that doctrine’s requirement of a causal link between the wrongdoing and the benefit conferred onto the claimant in the case law of the Supreme Court, this would likely leave little room for the passing-on defence. Furthermore, as was evidenced by the District Court’s earlier decision, the requirement of reasonableness could also stand in the way of a successful reliance on the passing-on defence.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court rules 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. The legislative proposal to enact this Directive in the Netherlands was submitted to the House of Representatives on 7 June 2016 (See our blog Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands).

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court goes on to say that the courts are free to choose how they qualify the 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. Either way, 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 put the burden of proving pass-through on the defendant.

In this context, the Supreme Court states that if its earlier case law suggested that the doctrine of voordeelstoerekening required a very direct causal link between the wrongdoing and the benefit conferred onto the claimant – which it clearly did – that case law no longer represents good law. In this respect, the Supreme Court ruling is to be regarded as a landmark decision, with implications that potentially reach far beyond the area of antitrust damage claims.

Related news

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

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