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

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

06.02.2020
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

07.02.2020
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring