Short Reads

Dutch court rules on antitrust damages claim in gas-insulated switchgear case

Dutch court rules on antitrust damages claim in gas-insulated switchg

Dutch court rules on antitrust damages claim in gas-insulated switchgear case

06.12.2018 NL law

On 28 August 2018, the Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on the appeal brought by Alstom in the gas-insulated switchgear case. The Court considered several issues commonly raised in follow on-proceedings, such as jurisdiction, applicable law and liability of group entities.

The ruling confirms that civil courts attach great value to a Commission's infringement decision in follow-on damages claims. The infringement decision does not only have binding evidentiary value, it is also considered leading when it comes to group liability issues. Considering the infringement decision's possible impact on follow-on damages claims, companies are wise to spell out the infringement decision and carefully consider the arguments raised at the European courts.

In 1993, Alstom sold a GIS-installation to TenneT's predecessor for a switching substation in Meeden, the Netherlands. In 2008, the European Commission decided that several producers of GIS-installations – including Alstom –operated a cartel on that market. Following the Commission decision, TenneT started legal proceedings against Alstom to claim damages for the overcharge it had allegedly paid for the GIS-installation in Meeden. The District Court agreed with TenneT and awarded the full amount of damages claimed [see our July 2015 Newsletter].

On appeal, Alstom argued that Dutch law was not the applicable law. Both Alstom's participation in the cartel and the price-setting occurred in France; based on the lex loci delicti-rule, French law should therefore have been applied. The Court of Appeal ruled that the market rule (marktregel) takes precedence over the lex loci delicti-rule. The market rule entails that the applicable law is the law of the country where the anticompetitive conduct has influenced the competitive conditions. In this case, that country was the Netherlands, as it concerned a GIS-installation situated in the Netherlands, which was part of the Dutch high-voltage grid network, the purchase agreement was concluded in the Netherlands and the anticompetitive agreements also covered the Dutch market.

Furthermore, Alstom alleged that TenneT's claim had expired. It argued that the limitation period had already started before the date of the Commission decision, when the Commission issued a press release about its investigation. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed stating that the press release only contained information about the Commission's intention to start an investigation, which did not imply that the companies being investigated were guilty of anticompetitive behaviour.

Alstom also appealed against the binding evidentiary value of the Commission decision in these civil proceedings. It argued that the District Court had wrongly assumed that the cartel agreements also covered the Meeden-project, as this particular project was not mentioned at all in the Commission decision. In reaching its judgment, the Court of Appeal specifically assessed whether, despite this, it was sufficiently plausible on the basis of the facts of this case that the Meeden-project was covered by the cartel agreements. It concluded that this was the case, because, among other things, (i) the cartel agreements covered the European market; (ii) the participants agreed upon prices and other conditions for submitting a tender; (iii) these agreements related to GIS-installations, like the Meeden-project, and (iv) all parties that subscribed to the tender for the Meeden-project were part of the cartel agreements.

Lastly, Alstom disagreed with the District Court's finding that four different Alstom-entities were liable for the damages. One of these entities, Alstom SA, was only established in September 1992. However, the Commission still held this entity liable for the entire infringement that started before Alstom SA was even established. According to Alstom, this was wrong and the District Court should not have followed the Commission's conclusion. But the Court of Appeal ruled that this argument should be brought before the European courts, which Alstom had, unsuccessfully, done. Since the General Court and Court of Justice had confirmed Alstom SA's liability for the entire duration of the infringement (so even for the part of the infringement that happened before Alstom SA was established), the civil courts must assume that Alstom SA was rightly named as an infringer for this time period.

 

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

Team

Related news

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

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