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

District Court of Amsterdam rules on requests for pre-procedural hearings

District Court of Amsterdam rules on requests for pre-procedural hear

District Court of Amsterdam rules on requests for pre-procedural hearings

01.05.2018 NL law

On 29 March 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled on requests for pre-procedural hearings in relation to the alleged infringements in the two separate cases of Trucks and CRT. This is the first time a Dutch court has ruled on a request for a pre-procedural hearing in follow-on damages cases. The District Court of Amsterdam rejected both requests because it did not consider it likely that a pre-procedural hearing would be useful in either case.

The pre-procedural hearing was introduced relatively recently under Dutch law as an addition to the existing collective settlement procedure. The idea behind it was to simplify and facilitate collective settlement negotiations at an early stage of proceedings with the assistance of a judge. Dutch courts can order a pre-procedural hearing at the request of foundations and associations representing collective interests of parties seeking to receive compensation.

A pre-procedural hearing may serve the purpose of (i) facilitating a collective settlement or, in the absence of a settlement, (ii) a case management hearing to prepare and structure a collective action. According to the District Court, a pre-procedural hearing should only be ordered if there is a reasonable prospect that it will be useful.

The District Court ruled in the cases above that a pre-procedural hearing was unlikely to facilitate a collective settlement. In Trucks, this was because the defendants did not appear willing to negotiate with the claimant about a settlement. In CRT, only one of the defendants had appeared in the proceedings and for this reason the District Court deemed it unlikely that the other defendants would appear in a pre-procedural hearing.

The District Court also ruled that a case management hearing was unlikely to be useful as the claimants in both cases had failed to provide sufficient information for the court to be able to prepare and structure a collective action. Both cases are still in the preliminary phase. The District Court emphasised that the parties should have at least described the main points of the dispute and clearly identified which points the court was being asked to determine.

In the CRT case, the District Court rejected a complaint by the defendant Philips challenging the admissibility of Consumentenbond (Dutch Consumers Association) on the basis it collaborates with an organisation operating a commercial business model. The District Court rejected this complaint stating that Consumentenbond had no commercial incentive.

The two judgments show that requests for pre-procedural hearing are evaluated critically. Dutch courts are only willing to grant a request if there is a reasonable prospect that a pre-procedural hearing will be useful.

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

  1. European Court of Justice provides guidance on assessing discriminatory pricing
  2. Germany did not err in extraditing an Italian citizen to the US for a competition law infringement
  3. European Commission imposes record fine on Altice for premature implementation of PT Portugal acquisition
  4. European Commission proposes draft Regulation on online platforms and search engines
  5. Rotterdam District Court quashes cartel fines imposed by the ACM on cold storage operators

 

 

 

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