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

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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