Short Reads

The postman will no longer ring twice: Minister unblocks postal merger

The postman will no longer ring twice: Minister unblocks postal merger

The postman will no longer ring twice: Minister unblocks postal merger

03.10.2019 NL law

The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently blocked postal operator PostNL's acquisition of its only national competitor, Sandd, because this would create "a monopolist on the postal delivery market". However, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has overruled the ACM's decision on grounds of public interest. Invoking industrial policy or public interest reasons for merger clearance seems to be catching on.

Although it is too early to tell whether non-competition related arguments will be heard more easily than was previously the case, companies should be aware that public interest reasons can be considered when contemplating a merger.

ACM blocks PostNL/Sandd merger

After in-depth research, which was verified by independent economic experts, the ACM rejected PostNL's planned acquisition of Sandd. According to the ACM, the efficiencies gained from establishing a single postal network following the proposed PostNL/Sandd merger would fail to offset the anticipated price increases for consumer and business mail. Competitive pressure on PostNL's postal prices is mainly exerted by Sandd, with digital mail only having limited disciplinary effects. Despite decreasing postal volumes, the ACM expects PostNL's postal activities to remain profitable in both the short and long term, meaning any PostNL/Sandd merger is therefore unnecessary for PostNL's continued fulfilment of its statutory universal service obligation.

Minister unblocks blocked PostNL/Sandd merger

PostNL and Sandd argued that their merger is necessary to keep the postal services "reliable, accessible and affordable, across both urban and rural areas, safeguarding a sustainable postal service for all, including the elderly and socially vulnerable groups". Since the ACM can only take competition interests into account in its merger review, it was for the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs to decide that the continuity of the postal services did indeed outweigh the competition issues identified by the ACM. The Minister's approval for the merger was granted under strict conditions regarding price increases and network access.

The Minister has never before overruled the ACM to clear a prohibited merger. It remains to be seen whether the unblocking is a sign of increased willingness to overrule merger prohibitions for public interest reasons.

Wider unblocking possibilities?

Many EU member states have means, similar to those in the Netherlands, to intervene in national merger control cases. In addition, the EU Merger Regulation provides member states with the option to take appropriate measures to protect legitimate national interests in merger reviews at EU level. So far these powers have been used only rarely; the most recent example is the German Minister of Economic Affairs' clearing, on the basis of environmental policy reasons, a blocked joint venture between two bearings producers.

However, recent calls for a stronger European industrial policy – see the Franco-German manifesto and the European Council's 2030 vision – may lead to intensified application of these powers. There have also been suggestions to revise the EU merger control rules to take greater account of non-competition related considerations when assessing mergers (see also 'Margrethe Vestager plays matchmaker between enforcement and regulation' included in this Newsletter).

Time will tell whether the unblocking possibilities are widened. For now, it would be a great help to companies if the conditions and procedures for obtaining merger clearance on public interest grounds were further specified. This would provide more clarity on when, and how, companies can rely on these reasons. Even so, it is worthwhile for companies to take these non-competition related reasons on board when contemplating a merger.

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

 

 

 

 

Team

Related news

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - 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.

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