Short Reads

Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements

Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements

Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements

01.05.2017 NL law

On 4 April 2017, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled that supermarket and food service trade association CBL (Centraal Bureau Levensmiddelhandel) and its member Jumbo had not infringed article 6 of the Dutch Competition Act (Mw) when setting minimum standards for preventing the sale of alcohol and tobacco to underage customers. The ruling overturns the earlier judgment of the District Court of the Hague finding an infringement of the Dutch cartel prohibition.

In the Netherlands, it is prohibited to sell alcohol and tobacco to underage customers. To prevent such sales, Hollandsche Exploitatiemaatschappij (HEM) developed a system to verify the age of a customer by taking a picture at the cash register and having it evaluated off-site. Separately, CBL, with 95% of all supermarkets as its members, launched a Campaign in 2009 and drafted a Code of Conduct in 2012 that focused on age verification by the cashier. With the Campaign and Code CBL in effect introduced a minimum standard for CBL's members.

HEM initiated proceedings against CBL and Jumbo, alleging a cartel infringement resulting in the exclusion of HEM's system from the market. The District Court considered that the Campaign and Code amounted to an object infringement. It reached this conclusion by observing HEM's system was excluded from the market. The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of the District Court. Referencing Cartes Bancaires, the Court observed that the concept of 'object infringement' should be interpreted restrictively. In this case, the Court of Appeal considered that there was no object infringement. CBL Members were free to use additional verification measures. For example, one supermarket experimented with the HEM system while adhering to the Campaign, showing that the Campaign and Code did not exclude the use of the system. The Court also found it relevant that CBL's members had considered the system but decided against it for reasons relating to the system itself.

Decisions of trade associations and the concept of object infringements have come up a few times recently (e.g. Alpe d'huZes and De Geborgde Dierenarts). The District Court's ruling in this case was met with questions from practitioners that observed the limited substantiation for the finding of an object infringement. Additional questions were raised about the compatibility of the District Court's ruling with Cartes Bancaires. The judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal has now reconfirmed the restrictive interpretation of object infringements. HEM has indicated it will appeal the rulings before the Supreme Court.

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

  1. Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax authorities
  2. Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription
  3. European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement in online hotel booking sector
  4. Dusseldorf Court confirms that Asics' online sales restrictions violate competition law
  5. Commercial Court of Ghent grants compensation to parallel importers for competition law infringement by Honda

Team

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