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

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

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

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

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