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

28.05.2019 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 Newsletter on this judgment). 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.

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

04.07.2019 NL law
Audit firms and accountant's duty of care towards third parties

Short Reads - The Dutch Supreme Court recently decided (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:744) that the standard for audit firms' and accountants' duty of care towards third parties is in essence no different than the general duty of care under Dutch tort law, and ultimately depends on the circumstances of the case. However, the role of accountants in society, their responsibility to serve the general interest, and rules of professional conduct and practice play an important role.

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