Short Reads

General market studies are insufficient proof to establish dominance, two Dutch District Courts rule

General market studies are insufficient proof to establish dominance,

General market studies are insufficient proof to establish dominance, two Dutch District Courts rule

02.07.2018 NL law

In two recently published Dutch District Court judgments, the high evidentiary standard for invoking competition law arguments in civil proceedings was confirmed.

Pursuant to standing case law of the Dutch Supreme Court, a party invoking an infringement of EU or Dutch competition law is required to substantiate such a claim with relevant (economic) facts and circumstances in order to allow for an adequate and reasoned (economic) debate. Specifically, the two recent judgments reaffirm that claimants cannot solely rely on general market studies of national competition authorities or commercial firms to substantiate their claims.

In the first case, the Noord-Holland District Court held that Amsterdam international airport Schiphol did not abuse a dominant position. The question arose in civil proceedings after Schiphol terminated a concession and rent contract with VATFree, a provider of VAT refund assistance services, thus terminating VATFree's presence at Schiphol. VATFree argued that access to Schiphol is pivotal for reaching its target group – that is, visitors from non-EU countries. On that basis, it argued that terminating the contracts granting this access amounted to abuse of dominance by Schiphol.

According to the District Court, VATFree failed to meet the high evidentiary standard. It had only relied on a 2010 report from the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets, in which it was found that Schiphol had a dominant position on the market for passenger handling services. However, the District Court found that the scope of that report and the relevant market is limited to activities directly ancillary to aviation activity as defined in the Amsterdam Airport (Operation) Decree 2006. The District Court understood this as encompassing only those activities without which it is impossible for passenger aircrafts to take off and land. In this sense, VAT refund assistance services are too far removed from aviation activity to be covered by the report and hence the plaintiff's claims were not sufficiently substantiated.

In the second case, the Gelderland District Court dismissed a claim based on abuse of dominance in the market for propionate, a component for animal feed. It found that the market study the claimant relied on was insufficient to establish dominance, since the report did not give sources or sufficient reasons for the market share figures it contained. The claimant's own, additional estimates as to the respondent's market share could not save its claims.

These judgments serve as a reminder that Dutch courts are reluctant to allow complaints based on competition law in civil proceedings in the absence of detailed, case-specific and relevant documentation substantiating the existence of dominance and the alleged infringement.

 

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

  1. General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions
  2. Excessive pricing findings set aside by UK court in prominent pharma ruling

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