Short Reads

District Court of Rotterdam annuls 6 fines in the Rotterdam taxi operators cartel case

District Court of Rotterdam annuls 6 fines in the Rotterdam taxi operators cartel case

District Court of Rotterdam annuls 6 fines in the Rotterdam taxi operators cartel case

02.11.2016 NL law

On 13 October 2016, the District Court of Rotterdam ("Court") delivered its judgments in the Rotterdam Taxi Operators Case.

In its rulings the Court annulled the decisions of the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM"), which imposed fines on two Rotterdam taxi firms (decision 1 and 2) and on four of the executives working for the taxi firms (decision 34, 5 and 6) for violating the Dutch cartel prohibition.

Specifically, the Court found that the ACM had failed to adequately determine the relevant geographic market. As a result, the Court was unable to determine whether or not the cartel would fall within the scope of the Dutch de minimis provision ex Article 7 Dutch Competition Act.

In its decision, dated 20 November 2012, the ACM decided that the taxi operators engaged in bid-rigging arrangements involving contractual taxi transport services in the greater Rotterdam area. The ACM limited the relevant geographic market to the Rotterdam Region. Consequently, the market shares of the parties involved were higher. For that reason, the cartel fell outside of the scope of the de minimis provision.

The taxi operators appealed the decision arguing, among other things, that the ACM insufficiently substantiated its position that the geographic market should be limited to the Rotterdam region. The taxi operators pointed out that in a previous merger notification assessment the ACM had ruled that the market for contracted taxi services should likely be delineated at the national level and that the ACM had failed to investigate whether or not the market should be broader than the Rotterdam region.

The Court agreed with the taxi operators, stating that there was no evidence of the ACM conducting a thorough investigation with regard to the geographic market and  therefore it could not rule out that the market was indeed a national market. As a result, the Court concluded that it was impossible to determine whether the conduct of the parties significantly restricted competition and whether the parties could invoke the de minimis provision. The ACM was not offered an opportunity to remedy the defects, because the Court stated that too much time had passed and a new assessment would be required. Therefore, the Court repealed the decision of the ACM and annulled the fines.

The key takeaway of these judgments is that, according to the Court, also in cartel cases the ACM will have to sufficiently examine what the relevant market is, before it can conclude whether or not competition was appreciably restricted.

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

  1. District Court of The Hague deals with claim reduction by claimant and rules that claimant is responsible for preserving documents
  2. Dutch Ministry issues Guidelines on Corporate Sustainability Initiatives and Competition Law

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring