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

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

01.10.2018 EU law

On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

On the basis of a market consultation conducted in 2014, the ACM identified competition concerns in its finding that PostNL had significant market power on the market for 24-hour physical business mail and effectively refused to offer competitors access to its network and associated facilities. In order to remove these concerns, the ACM imposed access, tariff and transparency obligations on PostNL. 

In its appeal, PostNL argued that the ACM had erroneously excluded the market segment for digital mail from the relevant market. The ACM had defined the relevant market on which PostNL allegedly had significant market power exclusively on the basis of product characteristics. PostNL claimed that the market segment for digital mail formed part of the same market as physical mail and put forward an SSNIP test to substantiate that statement. 

The CBb held that there is no general obligation for the ACM to quantitatively substantiate its choice for a particular relevant market definition. An approach based on product characteristics may be sufficient in certain circumstances. This does not mean, however, that the ACM has full discretion to refrain from a quantitative method such as the SSNIP test. When the definition of the relevant market on the basis of product characteristics leads to ambiguous results, an SSNIP test, for example, may be required. 

According to the CBb, it was not enough for the ACM to rely on a market definition based on product characteristics since PostNL had submitted an SSNIP test that had a different outcome. Therefore, the ACM should have explained why an SSNIP test was not necessary or would not have led to a different market definition. The CBb concluded that the ACM had failed to sufficiently demonstrate why the digital mail segment fell outside the market for 24-hour business mail and had not fulfilled its burden of proof with regard to explaining why the SSNIP test submitted by PostNL was irrelevant given the circumstances of the case.
 
The CBb ruled that the ACM’s definition of the relevant market could not be maintained. Subsequently, it annulled the market analysis decision and consequently cancelled the obligations imposed on PostNL in that decision. 

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

1. Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court
2. EFTA Court offers guidance for assessing national limitation periods for follow-on damages claims
3. UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

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