Short Reads

General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision

General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision

General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision

01.11.2017 NL law

On 26 October 2017, the General Court (GC) annulled the Commission's 2014 decision approving the merger between cable companies UPC Nederland B.V. (UPC) and Ziggo N.V. (Ziggo) following an appeal brought by KPN. The GC found that the Commission had failed to properly assess the vertical effects of the merger on a potential market for premium pay TV sports channels. Although merger decisions are rarely annulled by the EU courts, this judgment marks the second time it has happened this year.

In the earlier judgment, the GC annulled the Commission decision to block a merger between parcel delivery companies UPS and TNT [see our April 2017 Newsletter].

On 10 October 2014, the Commission approved the merger subject to the divestment of premium pay TV channel Film1. During its review, the Commission found that there were only four premium pay TV channels available in the Netherlands at the time (Film1, HBO Nederland, Sport1 and Fox Sports). The Commission considered that the merger would raise horizontal and vertical concerns either on the premium pay TV channels market or on a possible sub-segment of that market limited to film channels. Post-merger, the combined entity would have owned the only two premium pay TV film channels (Film1 and HBO Nederland). As far as the sports channels were concerned, the Commission found that the merger would not raise horizontal concerns since Fox Sports was not subject to the transaction.

KPN appealed the decision, arguing that the Commission had failed to assess the possible vertical effects on the market for premium pay TV sports channels, whereas it should have done so. In KPN's view, since (i) the merger enabled Liberty Global to cover 90% of territory in the Netherlands and (ii) Sport1 is an essential input for downstream competitors, the merger was likely give rise to vertical concerns.

In addressing the argument, the GC first established that the Commission left the precise market definition open because it considered that regardless of any further sub-segmentation of 'the market for wholesale supply and acquisition of premium pay TV channels', the merger would not raise competition concerns.

In that regard, the GC noted, however, that the Commission is "required to set out the facts and the legal considerations having decisive importance in the context of the decision". In this case, the GC found that the Commission acknowledged that the market could be sub-segmented into of film or sports channels, but only assessed the vertical effects on one of the two identified sub-segments. According to the GC, where the Commission ultimately leaves the precise market definition open, it is required to explain "at least briefly" the reasons why the proposed transaction would not raise competition concerns, including by addressing potential vertical effects on the identified sub-segments of the market. Given that the Commission had failed to explain why the merger would not have raised vertical concerns in relation to premium pay TV sports channels, the GC annulled the decision.

Following the merger between UPC and Ziggo, the cable company subsequently merged with Vodafone's Dutch business (Vodafone Ziggo). As a result of the annulment, the Commission will have to reassess the merger following a new notification of the original concentration by Vodafone Ziggo. Under the EU Merger Regulation, a new notification must factor in "intervening changes in market conditions".

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

  1. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  2. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  3. European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon
  4. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

30.04.2019 EU law
Climate goals and energy targets: legal perspectives

Seminar - On Tuesday April 30th, Stibbe organizes a seminar on climate goals and energy targets. Climate change has incited different international and supranational institutions to issue climate goals and renewable energy targets. Both the UN and the EU have led this movement with various legal instruments.

Read more

15.03.2019 EU law
European Court of Justice issues landmark ruling on parental liability

Short Reads - On 14 March the European Court of Justice issued a landmark judgment in the Skanska case. In this ruling, the Court of Justice held that parent companies can be held liable for the damage caused by a competition infringement committed by their subsidiary if the parent company (that holds all the shares in the subsidiary) has dissolved the subsidiary but continued its economic activity.

Read more

01.03.2019 NL law
Does selling a phone on an online marketplace make you a "trader" under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive?

Short Reads - Online marketplaces provide sales channels not only for professional traders but also for individuals selling second-hand goods. For buyers, online advertisements do not always make it clear whether the seller is a professional trader or an individual. This distinction is important because consumers buying from a professional trader can benefit from EU consumer laws, while these protections do not apply in consumer-to-consumer sales.

Read more

18.02.2019 BE law
Plan-MER voor Vlaams windturbinekader? Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen te rade bij Europa

Articles - Het wordt stilaan een traditie van de Belgische rechter om het Hof van Justitie te bevragen over de milieueffectenbeoordeling en -rapportage (MER). Na de Raad van State en het Grondwettelijk Hof is het de beurt aan de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen. In een tussenarrest van 4 december 2018 heeft de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen aan het Hof van Justitie een lijst met prejudiciële vragen gesteld over de plan-MER-plicht van het Vlaamse kader voor de uitbating van windturbines. Mogen we ons verwachten aan een juridische saga "d'Oultremont pt.II"?

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring