Short Reads

Amsterdam Court of Appeal rules on the applicable law to air freight cartel damages claims

Amsterdam Court of Appeal rules on the applicable law to air freight

Amsterdam Court of Appeal rules on the applicable law to air freight cartel damages claims

05.08.2021 NL law

On 6 July 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal had to decide whether the pragmatic approach of the Amsterdam District Court, which had applied Dutch law to all air freight cartel damages claims, could be upheld. The Court of Appeal ruled that the claims relating to flights falling within the scope of the European Commission’s decision are governed by Dutch law. 

As regards the claims relating to flights falling outside the scope of the decision, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the District Court. The Court of Appeal found that at this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to decide on the applicable law on those claims, because the claimant did not furnish enough facts in this regard.

Facts and judgment of the District Court

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is rendered in the ongoing air freight cartel litigation, in which indirect purchasers (known as ‘shippers’) of air freight services initiated civil proceedings against the airlines that are alleged to have participated in a price-fixing cartel between 1999 and 2006.

In 2019, the District Court had to decide which legal system(s) would govern the civil law damages claims of the indirect purchasers. On 1 May 2019, the District Court rendered two judgments (1 and 2) and took a pragmatic approach, applying Dutch law to all individual follow-on damages claims resulting from the international air freight cartel. It ruled that since the cartel had a worldwide impact, including in the Netherlands, Dutch law could be applied to all individual claims. The court justified this approach with reference to the principles of due process and the European law principle of effectiveness.

The airlines appealed this decision, arguing that the decision of the District Court was based on incorrect assumptions and did not take into account the private international law rules for determining the applicable law to international follow-on damages claims.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal

As the anticompetitive conduct occurred before the Rome II Regulation entered into force in January 2009, the Court of Appeal referred to the Dutch private international law rule which provides that claims arising out of an infringement of competition law are "governed by the law of the state where the competitive act affected the competitive relationships". According to the Court of Appeal, the ‘single and continuous infringement’ by the airlines results in a single damages claim per shipper. The court furthermore considers that the competitive relationships with regard to an individual flight were distorted both at the airport of departure and at the airport of arrival. Therefore, the damage suffered by a shipper as a result of the infringement was incurred in several states, because the market was disrupted in several states. This is even the case if a shipper bases his claim on one single flight. This follows, according to the Court of Appeal, from the specific, transnational character of air cargo services.

According to the Court of Appeal, there is a legislative gap in the applicable Dutch private international law rule. The legislator did not foresee the present situation in which the applicable Dutch rule designates multiple legal systems rather than just one when the competitive relationships relating to one individual flight are simultaneously affected in different places. This applies all the more when a shipper has purchased more than one flight on different flight routes.

In deciding how this legislative gap should be filled, the Court of Appeal considered that as far as possible it should be in line with widely shared views, should lead to as little legal uncertainty as possible, and should not be in conflict with the European law principle of effectiveness. With those principles in mind, the Court of Appeal refers to article 6(3)(b) of the Rome II Regulation, despite the fact that this regulation is not applicable in this case. Article 6(3)(b) of the Rome II Regulation allows claimants to apply the law of the country in which they bring their claims, provided that this country's market was "directly and substantially" affected by the relevant anticompetitive conduct. The (unilateral) choice of Dutch law by the claimants meets the requirements of article 6(3)(b) Rome II, according to the Court of Appeal.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal ruled that the follow-on damages claims of the shippers are governed by Dutch law, insofar as these claims relate to flights falling within the scope of the Decision of the European Commission (flights within the cartel period with a departure and/or arrival located within the EEA, including Switzerland).

As regards claims relating to flights falling outside the scope of the Decision, termed ‘extra-European flights’, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court judgment applying Dutch law to these claims. According to the Court of Appeal, claim vehicle Stichting Cartel Compensation (SCC) did not furnish enough facts in this regard. The Court of Appeal is therefore not able to decide on the applicable law on those claims at this stage of the proceedings.  


This judgment shows that the Court of Appeal, just as the District Court, seems to struggle with determining the applicable law to international follow-on damages claims. Instead of applying the (applicable) Dutch private international law rule, it prefers to adopt a more pragmatic approach and apply the (non-applicable) Rome II Regulation.

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of August 2021. Other articles in this newsletter:

Are your distribution contracts ready for the revised VBER?

Horizontal cooperation: from the dark side to the light?

ACM issues first excessive pricing fine in pharma

Court rules ACM can use accidental evidence found in dawn raids

Netherlands FDI regime protecting national security is getting closer

CJEU clarifies jurisdiction for follow-on damage claims

Court assesses threshold for substantiating cartel damage plausibility


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

07.10.2021 NL law
ACM walks the walk: first-ever vertical price coordination fine

Short Reads - The Dutch Competition Authority (“ACM”) has claimed a first victim in its vertical restraints battle. Samsung Electronics was fined nearly EUR 40 million for having meddled in the online resale prices for televisions at seven retailers. Compared to the European Commission’s fines on four consumer electronics producers for resale price maintenance (“RPM”), the ACM’s summary decision seems to refer to a ‘light’ version of RPM: systematic price coordination without any threats, sanctions or incentives for the retailers to stick to the price.

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

13.09.2021 NL law
Adopting the new Standard Contractual Clauses to secure international personal data transfers

Short Reads - Recently, the European Commission issued an implementing decision on standard new contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Economic Area. Organisations need to use the new SCCs from 27 September 2021 and onwards. Transitional periods apply for existing international data transfer agreements. To meet their obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation, organisations need to make the appropriate changes in time.

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

09.09.2021 BE law
Digital Law Up(to)date: (1) Parliamentary initiatives about cyber attacks; (2) ‘Zero tariff’ options before the CJEU; and (3) Council of State, GDPR and encryption

Articles - In this blog, we briefly present three interesting news in the field of digital law: (1) Parliamentary initiatives to tackle cyber attacks (2) "Zero tariff" options and open internet access do not mix! (3) Council of State, GDPR and encryption: validation of a decision of the Flemish Authorities

Read more