Short Reads

District Court of The Hague deals with claim reduction by claimant and rules that claimant is responsible for preserving documents

District Court of The Hague deals with claim reduction by claimant and rules that claimant is responsible for preserving documents

District Court of The Hague deals with claim reduction by claimant and rules that claimant is responsible for preserving documents

02.11.2016 NL law

On 21 September 2016, the District Court of The Hague ("Court") rendered a judgment in the Dutch paraffin wax case.

The Court ruled on the effects of a claim reduction after an amicable settlement with one of the defendants and on disclosure of documents relating to the passing on defense.

In 2008, the European Commission imposed fines on eight paraffin wax producers for infringing the cartel prohibition of Article 101 TFEU. Claim vehicle CDC purported to have acquired damage claims from paraffin wax customers that were allegedly overcharged as a result of the infringement. In 2011, CDC sued four of those paraffin wax producers for the entire alleged damages caused by the infringement. The other paraffin wax producers were involved by the main defendants in separate contribution proceedings.

After CDC had quantified its alleged claim, it reached a settlement with Sasol, one of the main defendants. CDC then reduced its claim against the remaining three defendants by  'Sasol's share' in the alleged damage. The three remaining defendants argued that in order to quantify 'Sasol's share', the other addressees should be involved in the main proceedings. As the internal shares of the eight paraffin wax producers were mutually interdependent, it was not possible to determine Sasol's share without at the same time determining the other producers' shares. Although the Court rejected involving the contribution defendants in the main proceedings, it came up with a practical solution: it ruled that the case management of the main and contribution proceedings should be parallel, with joint hearings requiring the attendance of all paraffin wax producers and CDC. 

Moreover, the Court ruled that if the settlement amount paid by Sasol to CDC turns out to exceed 'Sasol's share', it is to be deducted from any remaining claim. The Court indicated that it had no reason so far to assume this to be the case, but it explicitly noted that it may request CDC to disclose the settlement amount at a later stage.

The Court also dealt with disclosure of documents relating to the passing on defense (i.e.  that the customers could not have suffered a loss because they "passed on" any alleged overcharge to their own customers). While CDC maintained that no passing on had occurred at all, the defendants requested certain categories of documents from CDC to show that a large portion of any overcharge was in fact passed on. CDC challenged this request by arguing, among other things, that its customers failed to preserve certain categories of documents, and that CDC could not be obliged to disclose non-existent documents. The Court ruled that while a passing on defense must be raised by the defendants, CDC as claimant was responsible for making sure that relevant documents were preserved and accessible for the defendants. The Court announced that it may "draw the inferences it deems advisable" from the failure to preserve those documents.

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

  1. District Court of Rotterdam annuls 6 fines in the Rotterdam taxi operators cartel case
  2. Dutch Ministry issues Guidelines on Corporate Sustainability Initiatives and Competition Law

Team

Related news

02.12.2021 EU law
ECJ: private enforcement in aviation sector also a national court's game

Short Reads - Recently, the ECJ ruled that national courts dealing with private enforcement cases are competent to apply EU competition law to historical behaviour in the aviation sector, regardless of public enforcement by the Commission and national competition authorities, and regardless of whether or not such authorities had authority to pursue public enforcement in the relevant period.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Google Shopping: self-preferencing is a form of abuse of dominance

Short Reads - On 10 November 2021, the General Court (GC) almost entirely dismissed Google’s action against the European Commission’s Google Shopping decision. According to the European Commission (the Commission), Google illegally favoured its own comparison shopping service by displaying it more prominently in its search results than other comparison shopping services (see our July 2017 Newsletter). The Commission found that Google was abusing its dominant position and imposed a EUR 2.42 billion.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Gun jumping: beware, the Commission will take action

Short Reads - The Commission has imposed interim measures on Illumina and GRAIL. These measures include the obligation to run GRAIL by independent management. By adopting interim measures in addition to opening an investigation into whether Illumina and Grail breached the standstill obligation, the Commission has made clear it will not shy away from tough action against gun jumping during an ongoing merger review. 

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Back to the future – Commission publishes roadmap for green and digital challenges

Short Reads - The Commission’s Communication “A competition policy fit for new challenges” (link) (the “Communication”) identifies key areas in which competition law and policy can support European efforts in dealing with the challenges of the green and digital transitions. The document covers all areas of competition law (antitrust, merger control, and State aid) and identifies various ways in which new and existing tools can contribute to addressing these challenges.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Dominant firm may refuse to supply retailer after initial delivery

Articles - The Brussels Court of Appeal has held that a dominant producer firm may have valid reasons to refuse further supplies to a retailer, despite its dominance and despite previous deliveries. The Court of Appeal stressed the freedom for any company, including dominant firms, to choose their trading partners, in particular when there are valid and objective non-discriminatory reasons to refuse further direct supplies and when the retailer has alternative sources of supply.

Read more