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

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

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