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

12.05.2020 NL law
Kroniek van het mededingingsrecht

Articles - Wat de gevolgen van de coronacrisis zullen zijn voor de samenleving, de economie en – laat staan – het mededingingsbeleid laat zich op het moment van de totstandkoming van deze kroniek niet voorspellen. Wel stond al vast dat het mededingingsrecht zal worden herijkt op basis van de fundamentele uitdagingen die voortvloeien uit zich ontwikkelende ideeën over het belang van industriepolitiek, klimaatverandering en de positie van tech-ondernemingen en de platforms die zij exploiteren.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
Spreading fast: Dutch and Belgian COVID-19 State-aid approved

Short Reads - Many Member States are taking measures to support the economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The European Commission’s Temporary Framework enables the rapid approval of certain types of State aid. So far, three Dutch State aid schemes and six Belgian schemes were approved, providing the beneficiaries with legal certainty that the aid received is in line with EU State aid law and cannot be challenged at a later stage.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: no shortcut for ‘by object’ antitrust infringements

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice has found there is no shortcut for determining whether particular conduct can be held to have the object to restrict competition. A competition authority will always need to assess carefully whether the conduct reveals "a sufficient degree of harm to competition” before labelling it a ‘by object’ infringement. This is the case where there is sufficiently solid and reliable experience showing that this type of conduct is commonly regarded as being inherently anticompetitive.

Read more

28.04.2020 EU law
Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Short Reads - Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
COVID-19: fast-forwarding competition law

Short Reads - Competition authorities are temporarily ‘green-lighting’ certain collaboration initiatives to safeguard the supply of essential products in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, authorities warn against using the current exceptional circumstances to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, excessive pricing, refusals to deal or opportunistic takeovers. 

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