Short Reads

District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case

District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law

District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case

01.06.2018 NL law

On 9 May 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam declined to accept jurisdiction over Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken, in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB). In the same judgment, the Amsterdam District Court did accept jurisdiction over the alleged claim brought by MTB against Heineken N.V. (Heineken), for the reason that Heineken is based in Amsterdam. The case against Heineken will therefore continue to the next procedural phase, in which the parties will debate the merits of MTB’s alleged claim against Heineken.

On 19 September 2014, the Greek competition authority fined AB for abusing its dominant position on the Greek beer market. In its decision, the authority specifically found that there was no concrete evidence or any indication that Heineken had been involved in the alleged abuse of dominance of AB. Despite this finding, MTB initiated a civil claim against both AB and Heineken in Amsterdam. MTB argued that its claim against AB was 'closely connected' with its claim against Heineken so that the court could assume jurisdiction under the doctrine of the 'anchor defendant' (Article 8(1) Brussel I Regulation Recast). AB and Heineken subsequently raised a preliminary motion arguing that there was no such close connection.

The District Court of Amsterdam first ruled that MTB’s alleged claims against Heineken and AB were governed by Greek law. Under Greek law, a legal entity is not liable in principle for unlawful acts committed by another legal entity, even if both entities belong to the same group of companies. Therefore, for a successful claim against Heineken it was necessary to establish that Heineken itself was guilty of unlawful conduct, or of involvement in the alleged unlawful conduct of AB. MTB, however, failed to allege sufficiently concrete conduct on the part of Heineken and put forward ‘almost no concrete factual allegations regarding Heineken’s involvement in the alleged competition law infringement’. Given that that European Union law also does not dictate that entities that are part of the same ‘undertaking’ are liable in civil law to pay damages in the absence of a binding decision establishing their actual involvement in a competition law infringement, that concept could also not be used to substantiate the alleged 'connectivity'. For these reasons, the Court declined jurisdiction over the claims against AB. It nevertheless assumed jurisdiction over the claims against Heineken, given that Heineken is based in Amsterdam (Article 4(1) Brussels I Regulation Recast).

The Court's judgment shows that plaintiffs have to properly substantiate their alleged claims if they seek to rely on the 'anchor defendant'-doctrine. Dutch courts will not assume jurisdiction based merely on the allegations of plaintiffs.

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

European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger
European Commission must reassess Lufthansa's request to waive merger commitments
Dutch Appeal Court drastically reduces cartel fine Dutch construction company
Belgian Supreme Court confirms illegality of dawn raids due to the lack of a warrant

Team

Related news

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

05.03.2020 NL law
Swifter merger clearance and shorter merger filings in Belgium

Short Reads - Companies can expect swifter merger clearance and simpler filing rules in Belgium. The Belgian Competition Authority has published a communication with additional rules concerning the simplified procedure for certain types of concentrations. As a result, a new category of concentrations will be eligible for a simplified merger filing, leading to swifter approval and lower costs. It will also allow the BCA to focus its resources on more problematic and complex files.

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

05.03.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: gun jumping is double trouble

Short Reads - Companies beware: the European Court of Justice has confirmed the Commission’s practice of imposing two separate fines for gun jumping; one for failing to notify a concentration prior to its implementation, and another for implementing the concentration before obtaining clearance. The ruling underlines, once again, the increased focus of competition authorities on procedural merger control breaches – good reason for companies to keep a watchful eye on their gun jumping obligations and to take note of the possibility of two separate gun jumping fines. 

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

05.03.2020 NL law
Commission continues cross-border trade crusade

Short Reads - The European Commission is on a roll in its fight against territorial sales restrictions. Just one month after fining broadcast network company NBCUniversal for restricting cross-border sales, it has also imposed a fine on hotel group Meliá for discriminating between customers based on nationality or place of residence. Meanwhile, the Commission is urging national consumer protection authorities to tackle cross-border issues, after an EU-wide screening of nearly 500 e-shops showed that one fifth of the flagged websites did not respect the Geo-blocking Regulation. 

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