Short Reads

Return to sender: Court annuls ministerial unblocking of postal merger

Return to sender: Court annuls ministerial unblocking of postal merger

Return to sender: Court annuls ministerial unblocking of postal merger

02.07.2020 NL law

The Rotterdam District Court has annulled the Dutch Minister’s very first clearance of a blocked merger (between postal operators PostNL and Sandd), on grounds of public interest.

The court found that the Minister had insufficiently substantiated the public interest grounds concerned. According to the court, the Minister had also been too hasty in making the decision, which had prevented third parties from giving their views on the underlying clearance conditions.

Calls to intervene in merger control cases for non-competition related reasons have become louder and louder. This ruling, however, underlines that high procedural and substantive standards need to be met when answering to these calls.

ACM blocks postal merger

On 5 September 2019, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) blocked postal operator PostNL's acquisition of its only national competitor, Sandd, on the basis that this would create "a monopolist on the postal delivery market". 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. In addition, the PostNL/Sandd merger was unnecessary for PostNL's continued fulfilment of its statutory universal service obligation, as PostNL's postal activities would remain profitable in both the short and long term. Moreover, the ACM pointed to potential negative effects on competition in adjacent markets (such as parcel delivery) due to the loss of an additional postal delivery network. However, the ACM considered there was no need for a definite conclusion on actual effects, given the already-established significant anticompetitive problems in postal markets.

Minister unblocks blocked postal merger

On 27 September 2019, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy unblocked the ACM's prohibition decision on grounds of public interest; this was the Minister’s first time overruling the ACM (see also our October 2019 Newsletter). According to the Minister, the continuity and affordability of the postal services, and the protection of postal employees, outweighed the competition issues raised. The Minister's approval for the merger was granted under strict conditions regarding price increases and network access.

District Court overrules Minister’s unblocking

On 11 June 2020, the District Court of Rotterdam annulled the Minister’s unblocking of the postal merger. According to the court, the Minister had neglected to consider all the competition concerns identified by the ACM, particularly those raised in regard of adjacent markets. Furthermore, the Minister should have demonstrated, for each overriding public interest claimed, how and why the approval decision would contribute to attaining them, underpinned by relevant facts, reports and analyses. The Minister had, for instance, insufficiently refuted the ACM’s (external expert based) finding that the merger’s prohibition would not affect the continuity of postal services, by merely relying on PostNL’s own findings. The court also found the five-day consultation period for the network access condition too short for interested third parties to submit their views. The court therefore annulled the Minister’s approval decision, thereby removing the legal basis for the PostNL/Sandd merger.

And now?

Even though the court acknowledged the far-reaching implications of its annulment, and the difficulty of potentially unscrambling the PostNL/Sandd eggs, it considered that it had no other option given the lack of substantiated reasoning and absent third party views. The Minister has indicated that he intends to appeal the court’s ruling. Whatever the outcome, the ruling demonstrates a high standard for intervention in merger cases for non-competition related reasons, having due regard of procedural and substantive safeguards.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of July 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