Short Reads

Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages

Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

07.11.2019 NL law

The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Bundling of claims

The Court ruled that the bundling of claims by SECC through assignments does not change the fact that the claims brought forward by SECC are individual claims. These claims should be individually considered. More specifically, the Court held that SECC should show that it is plausible that the assignors have potentially incurred harm, and therefore SECC must substantiate for each assignor that the assignor has purchased relevant services or products of the defendants in the applicable cartel period. The Court held that SECC must submit to the Court for each assignor at a minimum one (relevant) sale or services contract. During the follow-up proceedings for the determination of damages, SECC and the defendants could also discuss in more detail the number of contracts that have allegedly been affected by the cartel.

Jurisdictional challenge

As to the jurisdictional challenge made by the defendants, arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors could preclude the Court from exercising jurisdiction. However, the Court held that these arbitration clauses only apply to disputes that were foreseeable at the time of the contracts’ conclusion. According to the Court, the cartel damages claims filed by SECC were not foreseeable at the time of the contracts’ conclusion. Furthermore, the Court held that a different outcome would result in practical difficulties for parties claiming cartel damages, which would violate the effectiveness principle under EU law.

Statutory limitation

As to statutory limitation, the Court held that the key question for the starting date of the limitation period is when the assignors were in fact able to submit a claim against the defendants. The Court held that the assignors had sufficient knowledge of the factual basis of the claims on the date of the European Commission decision which established the infringement. Therefore, the limitation period started on the day after 21 February 2007.

The Court then analysed per assignor whether its claims were either mentioned in SECC's writs of summons or in both formal letters interrupting the five-year limitation period. For some assignors the Court concluded that they were not mentioned in (one of) these letters, nor in the writs of summons, so that – in principle – the limitation period has run out with respect to those claims. However, the limitation period has not run out with respect to these claims insofar the defendants were notified of the assignment of these claims to SECC before (one of) the letters were sent, since SECC’s letters also interrupt the limitation period of SECC’s own claims.

 

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

 

 

 

Related news

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission’s record fine for gun jumping upheld

Short Reads - Pre-closing covenants protecting the target’s value or commercial integrity pending merger clearance from the European Commission must be drafted carefully. The General Court confirmed the Commission’s record-breaking fines on Altice for violating the EU Merger Regulation’s notification and standstill obligations. According to the General Court, the mere possibility of exercising decisive influence over the target can result in a gun jumping breach.

Read more

21.10.2021 EU law
Law and Artificial Intelligence (part three): towards a European perspective in intellectual property? The European Parliament goes one step further…

Articles - For the European Union, it is time to have uniformed rules on artificial intelligence (AI). On 20 October 2020, the European Parliamentary Assembly adopted, on the basis of three reports, three resolutions on AI from three different perspectives. These resolutions have recently (on 6 October 2021) been published in the Official Journal.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission reveals first piece of antitrust sustainability puzzle

Short Reads - The European Commission has published a Policy Brief setting out its preliminary views on how to fit the European Green Deal’s sustainability goals into the EU competition rules. Companies keen to be green may be left in limbo by a looming clash with more far-reaching proposals from national competition authorities. More pieces of the antitrust sustainability puzzle will fall into place as soon as the ongoing review of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation is finalised.

Read more

21.10.2021 EU law
Law and Artificial Intelligence (part two): towards a European framework in line with the ethical values of the EU? The European Parliament goes one step further…

Articles - For the European Union, it is time to have uniformed rules on artificial intelligence (AI). On 20 October 2020, the European Parliamentary Assembly adopted, on the basis of three reports, three resolutions on AI from three different perspectives. These resolutions have recently (on 6 October 2021) been published in the Official Journal.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Court of Appeal provides guidance for further course of proceedings in prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 27 July 2021, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued an interim judgment in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation, ruling on three issues: (i) the obligation of claimant to furnish facts; (ii) the assignment of claims; and (iii) the liability of the parent companies. In short, the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant Deutsche Bahn another opportunity to supplement the facts needed to substantiate its claims in the next phase of the proceedings.

Read more