Short Reads

Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages

Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

06.06.2019 NL law

Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims.

These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Referring to case law such as CDC v. Akzo Nobel et al. and Courage v. Crehan et al. the Court started by pointing out that civil liability for antitrust violations is established by national law, rather than European law. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the bundling of claims does not take away their individual character. Therefore, these claims should be considered individually.

The Court held that claimants should have provided sufficient facts to determine whether or not a purchaser, lessee and/or user was affected by the cartel to allow the Court to determine whether or not the possibility of harm is plausible. More precisely, the Court stated that claimants should have substantiated per individual claimant:

  • that and which trucks were obtained in the relevant period;
  • when, how and from whom Claimants purchased, rented, leased and/or used these trucks;
  • (if applicable) how and when the rental period, lease period, ownership and/or use of these trucks ended.

The Court noted that – absent this information – the defendants could simply contest the allegations made by the claimants. That would make the proceedings ineffective, since the Court would then have no choice but to reject the claims. The Court therefore provided claimants with the opportunity to provide the necessary factual information in a written submission on 18 September 2019. The Court ruled that it is up to the claimants to determine which facts and documents are necessary to sufficiently substantiate their claims. However, the Court also noted that if it is later established that the claimants did not provide sufficient facts, their claims may be dismissed.

In respect of the assignments of claims, the Court decided that claimants must provide assignment documentation to substantiate that claims were in fact assigned to them.

The Court did not decide when CDC’s motion for disclosure of the European Commission’s statement of objections will be debated. The Court indicated that it will decide this issue later as part of the debate on the merits of the claims.

In its judgement, the Court also decided to formally join all pending Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings (currently over ten) before the Amsterdam District Court.

The Court’s judgment bears a striking resemblance to the recent (and final) judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden in the elevator cartel case [see our February 2019 Newsletter]. In fact, the Court made an explicit reference to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in that case. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant (East West Debt B.V.) had failed to provide concrete information showing which parties were affected by the cartel. The claimant had also failed to adequately demonstrate which party had purchased which specific products, which manufacturers had provided those products, and how much had been paid in those transactions. As a result, the Court of Appeal rejected all claims.

Together, these judgments confirm that Dutch courts, while generally being open to cross-border follow-on actions, require that claimants (including claims vehicles) are well-prepared when they decide to initiate a follow-on action. Claimants’ writs of summons must include sufficient information regarding the harm suffered by claimants as a result of a cartel.

 

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

Related news

02.12.2021 NL law
Google Shopping: self-preferencing is a form of abuse of dominance

Short Reads - On 10 November 2021, the General Court (GC) almost entirely dismissed Google’s action against the European Commission’s Google Shopping decision. According to the European Commission (the Commission), Google illegally favoured its own comparison shopping service by displaying it more prominently in its search results than other comparison shopping services (see our July 2017 Newsletter). The Commission found that Google was abusing its dominant position and imposed a EUR 2.42 billion.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Gun jumping: beware, the Commission will take action

Short Reads - The Commission has imposed interim measures on Illumina and GRAIL. These measures include the obligation to run GRAIL by independent management. By adopting interim measures in addition to opening an investigation into whether Illumina and Grail breached the standstill obligation, the Commission has made clear it will not shy away from tough action against gun jumping during an ongoing merger review. 

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Back to the future – Commission publishes roadmap for green and digital challenges

Short Reads - The Commission’s Communication “A competition policy fit for new challenges” (link) (the “Communication”) identifies key areas in which competition law and policy can support European efforts in dealing with the challenges of the green and digital transitions. The document covers all areas of competition law (antitrust, merger control, and State aid) and identifies various ways in which new and existing tools can contribute to addressing these challenges.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Dominant firm may refuse to supply retailer after initial delivery

Articles - The Brussels Court of Appeal has held that a dominant producer firm may have valid reasons to refuse further supplies to a retailer, despite its dominance and despite previous deliveries. The Court of Appeal stressed the freedom for any company, including dominant firms, to choose their trading partners, in particular when there are valid and objective non-discriminatory reasons to refuse further direct supplies and when the retailer has alternative sources of supply.

Read more

02.12.2021 EU law
ECJ: private enforcement in aviation sector also a national court's game

Short Reads - Recently, the ECJ ruled that national courts dealing with private enforcement cases are competent to apply EU competition law to historical behaviour in the aviation sector, regardless of public enforcement by the Commission and national competition authorities, and regardless of whether or not such authorities had authority to pursue public enforcement in the relevant period.

Read more