Short Reads

District Court rules on the preliminary defences in CRT case

District Court rules on the preliminary defences in CRT case

District Court rules on the preliminary defences in CRT case

03.04.2018 NL law

On 29 November 2017, the District Court of East-Brabant ruled in four separate judgments (1, 2, 3 and 4) on preliminary defences raised by defendants in damages claims brought by various Brazilian claimants in relation to the alleged cartel in cathode ray tubes (CRT). 

 

These claims relate to the decision from the Commission in 2012 fining eight CRT producers for participation in two separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU. One infringement related to colour picture tubes (CPTs) and the other to colour display tubes (CDTs). The Brazilian competition authority also initiated proceedings regarding both products and concluded settlements with some of the defendants. In August 2016, the Brazilian claimants initiated damages proceedings in the Netherlands against various addressees of the Commission decision and other entities, based on an alleged infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition.

The District Court judgments dealt with several preliminary defences raised by the defendants. These related to (i) an alleged failure to furnish facts and (ii) the international jurisdiction of the Dutch civil court (which was only contested by the non-EU entities involved in the proceedings).

First, the District Court clarified that the claimants had indicated during the oral hearing that their claims were based on a possible infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition. The District Court concluded that the claimants had furnished sufficient facts to bring the case based on an infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition. To the extent that the claimants also wished to rely on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the District Court confirmed that Article 101 TFEU only covers practices which might affect trade among EU Member States. As the claimants had not furnished sufficient facts to show that their claims related to transactions in the EEA area, the District Court ruled that the proceedings would continue solely on the grounds of an alleged infringement of the Brazilian cartel prohibition.

Secondly, the District Court ruled in separate judgments on the defences relating to jurisdiction. Most of these defences were rejected. However, the District Court did allow the defence brought by one of the defendants claiming that it was being sued for damages in relation to the CDT infringement, even though it was not fined by the Commission for participation in the CDT infringement and was not investigated by the Brazilian competition authority.

In the next stage of the proceedings, the District Court will hear the parties' arguments on the application of the Brazilian statute of limitation to the claims for damages.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

1.       District Court Amsterdam rules real estate platform Funda did not abuse its dominant position

2.       First Dutch excessive pricing case in pharma may be expected soon

 

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

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