Short Reads

Implementation of Antitrust Damages Directive: Dutch legislation effective as of 10 February 2017

Implementation of Antitrust Damages Directive: Dutch legislation effective as of 10 February 2017

Implementation of Antitrust Damages Directive: Dutch legislation effective as of 10 February 2017

01.03.2017 NL law

On 9 February 2017, the act implementing the Antitrust Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104 /EU, the "Directive") into the laws of the Netherlands (the "Implementation Act") was published  in the official Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (het Staatsblad). The Implementation Act is effective as of 10 February 2017 [see our July 2016 Newsletter].

The Directive was adopted on 26 November 2014 and contains numerous provisions relevant to private antitrust litigation. The most important provisions relate to disclosure of evidence, the position of the immunity recipient, (proof of) loss and passing on, joint and several liability, and statutory limitation. The Implementation Act amends the Dutch Civil Code and the Dutch Code of Civil procedure. Some of the implementing provisions deviate from the pre-existing legal framework, whereas others mainly codify case law of the European Court of Justice.

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

1. European Commission opens three investigations in the e-commerce sector
2. European Commission approves German measure to support electric charging infrastructure for green vehicles
3. Belgian Competition Authority publishes Guidelines on how to identify and avoid bid-rigging

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

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