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

District Court Rotterdam upheld the ACM's clearance decision in telecoms merger KPN/Reggefiber

District Court Rotterdam upheld the ACM's clearance decision in telecoms merger KPN/Reggefiber

District Court Rotterdam upheld the ACM's clearance decision in telecoms merger KPN/Reggefiber

02.06.2016 NL law

On 12 May 2016, the District Court of Rotterdam ("District Court") upheld the ACM's decision to allow incumbent KPN B.V. ("KPN") to acquire sole control over Reggefiber Groep B.V. ("Reggefiber") without imposing conditions. The appeal was lodged by Vodafone Libertel B.V. ("Vodafone"), one  of Reggefiber's downstream customers of unbundled access to its fixed fiber-optics network.

In essence, the District Court upheld the ACM's conclusion that regulatory obligations imposed on KPN by the national telecommunications regulator would restrict its ability to significantly impede competition, despite acquiring a market share of "close to 100%".

This case has its roots in an earlier decision adopted by the ACM in 2008, following which KPN and Reggeborgh acquired joint control over Reggefiber, subject to strict remedies. Coinciding with the ACM's 2008 decision, the Dutch telecommunications regulator imposed similar conditions on the joint venture because of KPN's pre-existing position as an undertaking with significant market power ("SMP conditions").

In the case at hand, KPN intended to purchase Reggeborgh's remaining shares in Reggefiber. The ACM cleared the acquisition. This time, however, it did not impose any remedies. Vodafone appealed this decision by arguing, amongst other things, that the ACM had erroneously concluded that SMP conditions can sufficiently remedy the structural competition concerns likely to arise following the concentration.

The District Court rejected this line of argument, upholding the ACM's decision insofar as it found that (existing) SMP conditions imposed on KPN would render it unable to significantly impede competition. The District Court also concluded it was sufficient that the ACM could (and would if necessary) impose an unbundling requirement "should regulation prove to be inadequate".

A noteworthy aspect of the judgment is that the District Court agreed with the ACM's conclusion that the remedies imposed in 2008 would become "devoid of purpose" as a result of KPN's acquisition of sole control, since the original concentration "ceased to exist". According to the District Court, the only manner in which these remedies could have remained binding on KPN would be to explicitly re-impose them in any subsequent concentration.

In summary, the two key takeaways from this fact-specific case are: (i) existing merger control remedies are rendered "devoid of purpose" following subsequent concentrations, and (ii) regulatory obligations can play a significant role in the ACM's assessment of concentrations.

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

  1. General Court rejects Trioplast's action for annulment of a Commission notice to pay interest
  2. Commission blocked Hutchison's proposed acquisition of Telefónica UK
  3. General Court confirmed that German law on renewable energy amounts to State aid
  4. European Commission publishes guidance on the notion of State aid
  5. Rotterdam District Court considered "franchise agreements" in breach of competition law in launderette cartel case
  6. UK High Court held that territorial limits apply to EU cartel damages claims

Team

Related news

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

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

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more