Short Reads

Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation to Dutch bitumen cartel

Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation

Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation to Dutch bitumen cartel

01.11.2018 NL law

The Rotterdam District Court recently clarified that the date of news coverage of a European Commission dawn raid will not set off the limitation period for a cartel damages claim if it is not clear to the potential cartel victim that one of its suppliers was involved.

It also found that the Dutch rules on evidence should be interpreted in accordance with the Damages Directive when the damages claim falls outside the scope of the Directive. It is therefore important to bear in mind that submitting details on news coverage of a cartel investigation may not suffice when arguing on the limitation period and that the Directive may have far-reaching consequences.

In September 2006, the Commission imposed fines on a number of bitumen suppliers, including Shell, Kuwait Petroleum and various construction companies, for their alleged participation in a price-fixing cartel in the bitumen market. The alleged cartel covered all bitumen used for road construction in the Netherlands from at least 1994 to 2002. Construction company Van Gelder claimed damages from Shell and Kuwait Petroleum, who supplied bitumen to it.

On 26 September 2018, the District Court of Rotterdam (the Court) ruled on the damages claim brought by Van Gelder in relation to the alleged bitumen cartel. The Court first ruled on relativity. According to the Court, being party to an agreement that restricts competition by object is in principle unlawful vis-à-vis all other market participants. Considering that at least one of the operating entities of Van Gelder was active in the relevant market, the Court concluded that the requirement of relativity had been fulfilled vis-à-vis this entity. The Court will decide on relativity in relation to the other operating entities and the shareholder at a later stage.

The Court then turned to the defence of statutory limitation. Referring to several press releases and newspaper articles, Shell argued that the relevant limitation period (article 3:310 (1) Dutch Civil Code) started to run no later than 22 October 2004. In the absence of a valid act of interruption or suspension, Van Gelder was out of time when it sent a claim letter on 5 September 2011. However, the Court sided with Van Gelder and held that it could not be inferred from the newspaper articles that (i) Kuwait Petroleum had participated in the cartel and (ii) the cartel had negatively influenced prices of non-cartelists. The Court concluded that the limitation period did not start to run until the date of the Commission's fining decision and therefore the claims were not time-barred.

With regard to applying the rules on evidence of the Damages Directive (the Directive), the Court first stated that the cartel took place between 1994 and 2002, which was outside the scope of the Directive (and its implementation). However, adhering to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the Court decided to interpret the applicable rules under Dutch law consistent with the Directive. This would, according to the Court, not lead to a contra legem interpretation of Dutch law. Consequently, the Court held that Van Gelder was presumed to have suffered damage unless Shell proves otherwise.

In conclusion, the Court held both Shell and Kuwait Petroleum  liable. The parties will now have a further debate on the amount of damage to be paid.

 

 

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

  1. Franchise argument in laundry cartel does not wash with Dutch court
  2. A problem shared is a problem halved: fine reduction and fine liability are correlated
  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

18.02.2019 BE law
Plan-MER voor Vlaams windturbinekader? Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen te rade bij Europa

Articles - Het wordt stilaan een traditie van de Belgische rechter om het Hof van Justitie te bevragen over de milieueffectenbeoordeling en -rapportage (MER). Na de Raad van State en het Grondwettelijk Hof is het de beurt aan de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen. In een tussenarrest van 4 december 2018 heeft de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen aan het Hof van Justitie een lijst met prejudiciële vragen gesteld over de plan-MER-plicht van het Vlaamse kader voor de uitbating van windturbines. Mogen we ons verwachten aan een juridische saga "d'Oultremont pt.II"?

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

Read more

18.02.2019 NL law
Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Short Reads - As it stands, the UK will exit the European Union at midnight on 29 March 2019. Therefore, businesses within the UK, or with trade relations with the UK, would be best advised to assume that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. The exchange of personal data  within the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a no-deal Brexit, the GDPR will cease to be applicable in the UK upon its EU exit.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring