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

Court applies Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims

Court applies Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims

Court applies Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims

06.06.2019 NL law

On May 1, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in two judgments (1) and (2) that Dutch law applies to all follow-on damages claims resulting from the international air freight cartel, mainly citing practical considerations for its decision.

This decision shows that courts are willing to take a pragmatic approach to the complicated question of determining the applicable law to international follow-on damages claims. The claimant-friendly judgment will be subject to direct appeal.

The decisions were rendered in proceedings initiated by indirect purchasers of air freight services against the airlines that are alleged to have participated in a price-fixing cartel between 1999 and 2006.

The Court had to decide which legal system (or systems) would govern the civil law damages claims of these indirect purchasers. Since the anticompetitive conduct occurred before the Rome II Regulation entered into force in January 2009, this question had to be adjudicated under the Dutch private international law rule which provides that claims arising out of an infringement of competition law are "governed by the law of the state where the competitive act affected the competitive relationships".

Therefore, the core question with regard to every individual claimant's claim was in which state the air freight cartel had allegedly produced anticompetitive effects. In this regard, the court noted that the alleged cartel involved an agreement which affected prices and competitive conditions in the global air freight market. According to the court, this worldwide impact on competitive relationships made the rule, which attempts to precisely identify the affected market, difficult and impractical to apply.

Therefore, the Court decided to adopt a more practical approach. Remarkably, it ruled that since the cartel had a worldwide impact, including in the Netherlands, Dutch law could be, and in fact had to be, applied to all individual claims. The court justified this approach with reference to the principles of due process ("goede procesorde") and the European law principle of effectiveness.

The Court's claimant-friendly approach favours pragmatic considerations over the applicable rules.

The potential impact of this judgment is limited to situations in which the Rome II Regulation does not apply. For claims resulting from anticompetitive conduct that took place after 11 January 2009, the Rome II Regulation already allows claimants to apply the law of the country in which they bring their claims, provided that this country's market was "directly and substantially" affected by the relevant anticompetitive conduct. The approach adopted by the court in Amsterdam somewhat reflects this possibility.

The Court was aware of its pioneering approach, and granted parties the right to directly appeal its decision. The Court of Appeal will have to decide whether the pragmatic approach adopted by the Court can be upheld on appeal.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

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