Short Reads

Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressin

Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

06.02.2020 NL law

On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

On appeal, the main issue concerns the retroactive application of Article 33(5) of the German Competition Act, which came into force in July 2005. Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal regarded a German Supreme Court judgment of June 2018 as the leading authority on the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of German law.

The Court of Appeal will now proceed to review the merits of the claims and has invited the parties to submit briefs that are “no longer than 15 pages”.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal confirms that the rules of the law applicable to Deutsche Bahn’s damages claims – here: German law – determine the relevant limitation periods as well as the interruption and the suspension thereof. Under German law, a ‘long-stop’ limitation period of ten years and a ‘short-stop’ period of three years apply. On appeal, the main issue concerns the suspension of those limitation periods under Article 33(5) of the German Competition Act (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbbeschränkungen, "GWB") that came into force in July 2005. According to Deutsche Bahn, that provision triggered an automatic suspension of any running periods of limitation for the duration of the European Commission's investigation into the competition law infringement. The defendants challenged that position and argued that Article 33(5) GWB could not be applied retroactively to damages claims in relation to loss suffered prior to July 2005.

When the case was before the Limburg District Court, the retroactive application of Article 33(5) GWB was still a highly contentious issue under German law. However, the controversy was resolved when on 12 June 2018 the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) ruled that the provision applies to all competition damages claims regardless of whether they accrued before or after July 2005, provided that these claims had not yet become time-barred on the day on which Article 33(5) GWB entered into law. Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch regarded that German Supreme Court judgment as the leading authority on the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of German law, “even if the judgment drew criticism in German [legal] literature, as some of the respondents have argued”. 

The Court of Appeal will now proceed to review the merits of the claims and has invited the parties to submit briefs. However, the Court stresses that the briefs should be short – “no longer than 15 pages” – and should serve to convey any additional points the parties may wish to make, not to reiterate what the parties have already stated in earlier court briefs.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of February 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more