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

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

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