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

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