umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent eco

Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

01.08.2018 NL law

On 20 July 2018, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland published another interim judgment in the ongoing proceedings between TenneT, the grid operator in the Netherlands, and ABB in relation to the gas insulated switchgear (GIS) infringement. After the Dutch Supreme Court had confirmed in a judgment of 8 July 2016 [see our August 2016 Newsletter] that the passing-on defence is available under Dutch law, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland decided to appoint independent economic experts to provide input on the calculation of overcharge and the existence of pass-on.

The District Court had awarded an amount of EUR 23 million plus interest to TenneT. In its ruling, the District Court rejected ABB's attempt to invoke the passing-on defence, holding that it would not be reasonable to allow it considering the circumstances of the case [see our April 2017 Newsletter article which refers to the previous rulings]. On appeal, ABB argued that the District Court (i) incorrectly calculated the overcharge resulting from the GIS cartel and (ii) erred in law in ruling that it was not reasonable to allow the passing-on defence.

The Court of Appeal of Gelderland did not opine on the merits of these grounds of appeal in its judgment of 29 May 2018. It did, however, make clear that the Court of Appeal of Gelderland wishes to conduct a more in-depth investigation into the actual loss suffered by TenneT as a result of ABB's involvement in the GIS cartel by appointing economic experts to establish the resulting overcharge.

Regarding the passing-on defence, the Court of Appeal referred to the earlier Supreme Court judgment (noted above) establishing that a passing-on defence can be cognizable under Dutch law either as a factor affecting the loss suffered by a claimant (i.e. reducing any alleged loss associated with the payment of 'overcharges' to the extent that the overcharge was passed on), or under the doctrine of voordeelstoerekening, which holds that benefits enjoyed by a claimant as a result of alleged wrongdoing may under certain conditions be offset against the loss suffered by the claimant (cf. under German law: Vorteilsausgleichung).

The Supreme Court held that lower courts are free to decide which of the two approaches to adopt. The Court of Appeal opted for the first approach and decided that in order to fully assess the passing-on defence, it must first establish whether TenneT actually passed-on the overcharge to its customers.

As a final remark, it is perhaps worth noting that the Court of Appeal also confirmed that the District Court was right to reject ABB's request to submit the economic expert reports under a "confidentiality ring", considering that the interests in confidentiality of ABB did not outweigh the interests of third parties to obtain an unredacted judgment.

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

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  4. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  5. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  6. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  7. Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

 

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more