Short Reads

Franchise argument in laundry cartel does not wash with Dutch court

Franchise argument in laundry cartel does not wash with Dutch court

Franchise argument in laundry cartel does not wash with Dutch court

01.11.2018 NL law

Companies participating in a franchise agreement are advised to carefully assess possible competition law concerns, particularly if the franchisees are (potential) competitors. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal (CBb) recently confirmed that a franchise agreement cannot be used to cover up anti-competitive horizontal agreements.

Market-sharing arrangements among competitors generally qualify as agreements with the object to restrict competition, even when part of a franchise agreement. However, the CBb found that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets should have taken the cooperation's genuine franchise-related aspects, such as the joint development of knowhow, into account when setting the gravity factor for calculating the fine. It therefore reduced the gravity factor from 1 to 0.5.

On 23 October 2018, the CBb upheld the Rotterdam District Court's ruling that a 'franchise' agreement among four laundry service providers constituted anti-competitive market allocation.

The four laundry companies had jointly established a subsidiary Rentex Nederland (Rentex) in the 1970s which concluded "franchise agreements" with its shareholders. In 2011, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) had fined the companies for their participation in this agreement arguing that it in fact served as a means to allocate the market. This decision was upheld on appeal before the District Court, although the District Court annulled the decision vis-à-vis one of the companies (see our earlier newsletter).

Before the CBb, the companies reiterated their primary argument that the agreements under scrutiny were part of a legitimate vertical franchise agreement which was pro-competitive and did not infringe the cartel prohibition. Despite the vertical element, the CBb ruled that the 'franchise' agreement was predominantly horizontal in nature. The franchisees were the only shareholders of Rentex and were, as shareholders, actively involved in Rentex's strategic decisions (including those relating to the agreements under scrutiny). Also, the decisions taken in the shareholders' meetings affected the relationship among the laundry service providers themselves and thus had a horizontal effect.

The CBb ruled that the District Court erred in law in finding that one of the companies did not participate in the market allocation agreement as from August 2003. The CBb thus upheld the fine for this company as imposed by the ACM.

The CBb also concluded that the gravity factor used by the ACM for calculating the fine had to be reduced, considering that (i) the agreements had pro-competitive effects, such as development of knowhow, comparable to a franchise organisation, (ii) after receiving legal advice to assess the agreement the companies had ceased the passive sales restriction, (iii) the agreements were not clandestine and (iv) the actual detrimental effects on competition were limited. The reduction of the gravity factor led to a fine reduction for one of the companies.

 

 

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

  1. A problem shared is a problem halved: fine reduction and fine liability are correlated
  2. Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation to Dutch bitumen cartel
  3. ACM bound by its own rules during dawn raids
  4. European Court of Justice clarifies the application of choice of forum clauses in competition damages claims

Team

Related news

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

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

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

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