Short Reads

Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017

Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017

Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017

02.10.2017 NL law

On 1 September 2017, the rules of the Curaçao Competition Act (Landsverordening inzake concurrentie, "CCA") entered into force on the basis of a national decree (Landsbesluit) of 11 April 2017. The CCA addresses the three main topics of competition law: cartels, abuse of dominance and mergers. The CCA is largely in line with the Dutch and European competition rules, with a few notable exceptions described below.

Article 3.1 of the CCA follows the cartel prohibition in Dutch and European competition law (Article 6 DCA and Article 101 TFEU), albeit applicable to competition in the Curaçao market or a part thereof. Contractual provisions and agreements that are concluded contrary to the cartel prohibition are null and void. In principle, the cartel prohibition does not apply to agreements which are of minor importance (the "de minimis" exception), i.e. agreements between undertakings whose combined market share does not exceed 30% on any of the relevant markets. At the request of the undertakings concerned, the Fair Trade Authority Curaçao (FTAC) may also grant an (individual) exemption for agreements or practices whose economic and/or technical benefits outweigh their restrictions on competition and pass on a fair share of those benefits to consumers. The de minimis exception and the possibility to request an exemption do not apply to "hardcore" cartel infringements (i.e. agreements between competitors on prices or other sales conditions, "bid rigging" agreements, limitation of production or sales and market sharing).

Article 4.1 of the CCA contains the prohibition to abuse a dominant position. The CCA stipulates that an undertaking always has a dominant position if it has a market share of 60% or more. The FTAC can impose measures on undertakings with a dominant position to prevent abuse.

Pursuant to Article 5.2 of the CCA, a concentration of undertakings (in the meaning of Article 5.1 of the CCA) is subject to notification where (i) the combined worldwide turnover of the parties involved in the previous calendar year exceeded ANG 125 million (approximately EUR 60 million) and (ii) at least two of the parties achieved a turnover in Curaçao of ANG 15 million (approximately EUR 7 million) or more in the previous calendar year. A concentration must also be notified if as a result thereof the parties involved would create or reinforce a market share of 30% or more on any of the relevant markets in Curaçao. The CCA only provides for an obligation to notify and does not contain a system of merger approval. Currently the purpose of these notifications is merely to monitor concentrations and their effects. After a few years the FTAC will reconsider whether to introduce a merger approval system too.

The CCA also contains provisions on the establishment of the FTAC and its investigative powers to observe compliance with the CCA. The FTAC may impose fines up to ANG 1 million (approximately EUR 470,000) or 10% of the annual turnover of the undertaking(s) that infringed competition law. The FTAC may also impose binding instructions or incremental penalty payments if the cartel prohibition is violated or an undertaking abuses its dominant position.

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

  1. Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court
  2. Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  3. Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"
  4. Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position
  5. District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

Team

Related news

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

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

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

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