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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

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
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