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

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