Short Reads

Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands

Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands

Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands

06.07.2016 NL law

On 7 June 2016, a legislative proposal to enact the EU Antitrust Damages Directive (the "Proposal") was submitted to the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer). The Proposal serves to implement the Damages Directive in various sections of the Dutch Civil Code ("DCC") and the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure ("DCCP"). EU Member States must implement the Damages Directive by 26 December 2016.

The Proposal concerns various issues such as the tortious nature of EU competition law infringements and the presumption that they cause loss, joint and several liability for joint behaviour, the validity of the passing-on defence and an evidentiary presumption that overcharges are passed on to indirect purchasers [see our our November 2015 newsletter].

Several individuals and working groups, including the Vereniging voor Mededingingsrecht and the Werkgroep Private Enforcement and collective redress in European competition law, both chaired by Stibbe partner Jeroen Kortmann,  gave feedback on the Proposal through a public consultation. After the public consultation and an advice from the Council of State (Raad van State), only few amendments have been made to the Proposal.

The provisions of the Proposal are only applicable to competition law infringements that affect trade between EU Member States. For example, the presumption of Article 6:193l DCC that an infringement of competition law causes harm, only applies to infringements within the meaning of Article 101 or 102 TFEU or provisions of national law that are applied in the same cases in parallel to EU competition law. The government will deal with purely national infringements in a separate legislative proposal. Also follow-on litigation in relation to cartels in the United States, for example, is excluded from the scope of application.

In order to encourage amicable settlements, Article 6:193o DCC will enable a once-and-for-all settlement. The article provides that the claim of the settling injured party on the remaining infringers is reduced by the settling infringer's share of the liability. To avoid the settling infringer continuing to be jointly and severally liable, the remaining claim can only be pursued against non-settling co-infringers. Furthermore, the non-settling co-infringers cannot recover a contribution from the infringer who settled.

The most notable amendment concerns the limitation periods. In the draft proposal, the limitation periods would be interrupted in case of an alternative dispute resolution process or an investigation of a competition authority. Article 6:193t DCC now states that, in the event of an alternative dispute resolution process, the short-stop limitation period of five years will be extended by the duration of this process. When a competition authority starts an investigation, the limitation period will be extended by the duration of the investigation plus one year. The extensions are effected by operation of law.

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

1. Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel
2. General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request
3. General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction
4. District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
5. New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016
6. General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

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

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

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

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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