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 of Gelderland denies passing-on defence in antitrust litigation related to the GIS-cartel

District Court of Gelderland denies passing-on defence in antitrust litigation related to the GIS-cartel

District Court of Gelderland denies passing-on defence in antitrust litigation related to the GIS-cartel

04.04.2017

On 29 March 2017, the District Court of Gelderland rendered a ruling in the "damage assessment procedure" ("schadestaatprocedure") between TenneT and ABB concerning an overcharge TenneT allegedly paid for a gas insulated switchgear installation ("GIS-installation"). The District Court awarded an amount of EUR 23 million plus interest to TenneT and denied ABB’s defence that TenneT did not suffer any loss because it passed on the costs of the GIS-installation to its customers (the "passing-on defence").

In previous decisions by the District Court for the Eastern Netherlands, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden and the Dutch Supreme Court, ABB was held liable vis-à-vis TenneT for ABB’s participation in the "Gas Insulated Switchgear cartel" between the years 1998-2004 [see the July 2016 Stibbe Litigation Blog]. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court on 8 July 2016, the case was referred to the District Court of Gelderland to rule on the quantum of damages.

In defence against TenneT's claim, ABB had submitted two economic expert reports arguing - with references to ABB’s profit margins - that TenneT had not paid any overcharge. ABB moreover requested the District Court to rule that these reports would fall under a "confidentiality ring", meaning i.a. that the judgment should not contain any references to ABB's margins. The District Court denied this request on the basis that third parties had a valid interest in obtaining an unredacted judgment, given ABB's reliance on the passing-on defence. As for the substance, the court ruled that the expert reports did not provide sufficient insight into ABB's input and production costs. Instead, the District Court ruled that TenneT had furnished enough evidence to substantiate its claim that it had paid an overcharge.

As for ABB's passing-on defence, the District Court accepted that TenneT, an electricity transmission system operator, was likely to have passed on the overcharge to its direct customers who in turn passed on this overcharge to the general public. According to the Court, however, the general public is unlikely to sue ABB for damages given the costs of legal proceedings. Moreover, any damages awarded to TenneT would – in the Court's view – likely end up benefitting the general public because the Dutch state is a 100% shareholder of TenneT. In a curious consideration obiter, the Court appears to imply that the fact that ABB received immunity from fines in the context of the European Commission's leniency programme, militates in favour of the Court's decision to reject the passing-on defence. In light of these circumstances, the Court ruled that it would not be reasonable to accept ABB's passing-on defence.

The District Court's reasoning is similar to its reasoning in January 2013, when it ruled that it would not be reasonable for ABB to escape liability using the passing-on defence. This ruling was however overturned on appeal because the compensatory nature of Dutch tort law is not concerned with the fact that ABB might escape some or all of its liability. ABB now has three months to decide if it wants to appeal the judgment of 29 March 2017.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Samsung in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  2. Court of Justice rules on the Hearing Officer's competence to resolve confidentiality requests
  3. General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors 
  4. European Commission proposes a new Directive to empower national competition authorities to be more effective enforcers of EU competition law rules
  5. European Commission launches anonymous whistleblower tool

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