Short Reads

District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspect digital data

District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspec

District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspect digital data

01.08.2017 NL law

On 18 July 2017, in the context of preliminary relief proceedings, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) did not exceed its powers in the selection of digital data following a recent dawn raid at company whose identity was undisclosed (applicant). The judge stated that the applicant did not sufficiently substantiate its claim that certain digital documents selected by the ACM were outside the scope of the investigation. The judgment sheds new light on the application of the ACM 2014 Procedure for the inspection of digital data.

The dawn raid was part of an investigation by the ACM into the applicant for an alleged abuse of dominance. Using its investigatory powers as defined in the Dutch General Administrative Law Act, the ACM copied large amounts of digital data that were potentially relevant to the investigation. After applying search terms to these copies the ACM created a 'within-scope dataset'. The applicant claimed this dataset included data that was outside the scope of the investigation, in part as a result of the broad search terms the ACM applied. While the ACM granted the applicant's claim for many documents, it refused to exclude some of the disputed documents from its final investigation dataset. The applicant then turned to the District Court of The Hague to obtain preliminary relief.

The District Court dismissed the applicant's request to remove the documents in question from the file. First, the Court argued that the applicant could have raised its objections to the search terms used by the ACM earlier in the process but had not done so. Secondly, although the Court acknowledged the applicant's right to an effective ex-post judicial review of ACM's methods and conduct, as formulated in the European Court of Human Rights' case law, the Court held that the applicant failed to substantiate its claim for each specific document. In order to have the documents excluded, it should have done more than refer to mere categories of documents that it argued should have been excluded from the dataset.

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the claims, the District Court agreed with the applicant on certain issues. According to the Court, the ACM cannot argue that certain documents fall within the scope of the investigation merely because they were selected through the use of search terms. Instead, the deciding factor should be a sufficient connection between documents and the scope of the investigation as defined by the ACM. Moreover, the Court emphasized that companies have a right to object to the inclusion of certain documents, even after the investigation dataset has been compiled.

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

1. Court of Justice dismisses Toshiba's appeal against the gas-insulated switchgear fine
2. Recent enforcement action demonstrates an increasing focus on compliance with procedural EU merger rules
3. Trade and Industry Appeals annuls fine imposed on real estate traders
4. District Court of Rotterdam upheld ACM's decision to clear lottery merger
5. ACM closes probe into Fox over live-soccer TV rights due to lack of evidence of consumer harm

Related news

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

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

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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