Short Reads

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upholds appeal and confirms fines on taxi companies

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upholds appeal and confirms

Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upholds appeal and confirms fines on taxi companies

02.05.2019 NL law

The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) recently overturned two judgments of the Rotterdam District Court and confirmed the fines imposed on two taxi firms. The CBb judgments nuance the District Court of Rotterdam's previous focus on market definition.

Although the CBb considered defining the relevant market essential for the application of the de minimis provision, the CBb notes that market definition is not an end in itself. The two decisions can be viewed here and here.

On 23 April 2019, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) overturned the judgments of the Rotterdam District Court and confirmed the fines imposed on two taxi firms. The fines, totalling over EUR 8m, were previously imposed on the companies by the ACM in 2012 for bid-rigging.

In its decision of 20 November 2012, the ACM concluded that the taxi operators had engaged in bid-rigging arrangements involving contractual taxi transport services. In the analysis, the ACM limited the relevant geographic market to the Rotterdam region. As a result, the parties' combined market share exceeded the 10% threshold for the de minimis provision under Article 7 of the Dutch Competition Act.

On appeal before the District Court of Rotterdam the taxi operators argued that the ACM had insufficiently substantiated its position that the geographic market should be limited to the Rotterdam region. The District Court agreed, finding that the ACM had failed to adequately determine the relevant geographic market. As a result, the District Court was unable to determine whether or not the cartel would fall within the scope of the Dutch de minimis provision.

The ACM's main arguments on appeal before the CBb revolved around the adequacy of its investigation and whether that investigation was sufficient (i) to conclude that the agreements had an appreciable effect on competition, and (ii) to determine whether the agreement would fall within the scope of the Dutch de minimis provision.

Contrary to the District Court, the CBb found the ACM's investigation to be sufficient to conclude that the agreements had an appreciable effect on competition. Relevant factors for the CBb's assessment included the goal of the agreements, the nature of the affected services and the structure of the market.

The CBb also disagreed with the District Court on the adequacy of the ACM's investigation concerning the geographic market definition. According to the CBb, the ACM's investigation was sufficient to reach the conclusion that the geographic market should be delineated at the level of the Rotterdam region. To reach this conclusion the CBb considered the wording of the agreements, which showed that the parties specifically aimed to limit the competition in the Rotterdam region. Arguments in favour of a national market were dismissed by the CBb.

In this light, the CBb confirmed the fines initially imposed by the ACM, but reduced the amount of the fines by EUR 10,000  in view of the excessive length of the proceedings.

The key takeaway is that the CBb's has adopted a nuanced approach to market definition. Although the CBb considers the delineation of the relevant market to be essential for the application of the de minimis provision, it notes that the requirements differ according to the circumstances of each case. Market definition is not an end in itself, but a tool for the competition law analysis.

 

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

Team

Related news

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more