Short Reads

Highest Dutch Court: ACM has not proved dominance of Dutch railway operator NS

ACM has not proved dominance of Dutch railway operator NS

Highest Dutch Court: ACM has not proved dominance of Dutch railway operator NS

03.06.2021 NL law

A high market share is not always proof of a dominant position. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) upheld the annulment of the ACM’s fine of nearly EUR 41 million on Dutch railway operator NS for alleged abuse of dominance. According to the CBb, NS did not abuse its dominant position as the ACM failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NS holds a dominant position on the market for the exercise of the right to exploit the main rail network concession.

Rotterdam District Court ruling

In 2017, the ACM imposed a fine of nearly EUR 41 million on NS for alleged abuse of dominance. NS is the sole concession holder of the main rail network in the Netherlands until 2025. According to the ACM, NS had abused its alleged dominant position on this main rail network by, among other things, submitting a loss-making bid for a public transportation tender in Limburg (see also our July 2017 newsletter).

On appeal, the Rotterdam District Court annulled the ACM’s fine. The Court was unconvinced by the ACM's arguments that NS could act independently on the main rail network market. The Court considered that the ACM had neglected to investigate if and how the concession conditions affected NS' conduct (see our July 2019 newsletter).

CBb ruling

On higher appeal, it became clear that the ACM’s concerns did not so much relate to NS’ position as operator of the concession (so in relation to competition on the market) but focused on NS’ position as holder of (and contender for) the concession itself (so in relation to competition for the market). The focal point of the dominance question was therefore whether NS, at the time of the award of the concession, could have behaved to an appreciable extent independently of its customer, the State.

The CBb considered this not to be the case for a number of reasons, including that:

  • NS was not the only serious contender at the award of the 2015-2025 concession,

  • it was no certainty that NS would be awarded any future concession or a concession of similar size,

  • the State is more than a mere customer of NS (e.g. the State decides on whether the concession will be awarded in full or in part, whether there will be concurrent concessions and how and to whom a concession is granted),

  • the ACM neglected to specify which exact decisions by NS on the award or retaining of the concession enabled it to behave independently of the State.

In line with the Rotterdam District Court ruling, but partly on different grounds, the CBb therefore concluded that the ACM had not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that NS holds a dominant position on the market for the exercise of the right to exploit the main rail network concession. As a result, there could also be no abuse of dominance by NS.


‘The higher the market share, the more likely a finding of dominance’ does not always hold true. This ruling shows that the courts set a high bar for the ACM when proving its case: even in the event of a high market share, all other relevant factors need to be considered before concluding on dominance.


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



Related news

11.01.2022 EU law
2022: the big reveal of 2021’s competition law promises

Short Reads - 2021 was riddled with sneak previews of a “review of competition policy tools with unprecedented scope and ambition”. These sneak previews, alongside 2021’s other competition law developments, seem to point in the direction of a more ‘social’ side to competition law in 2022, as well as looming Big Tech and Big Pharma battles, intensified (international) cooperation, more clarity on merger-related obligations for companies, and shiny new vertical and horizontal block exemption regulations. 2022 will reveal how and when the revised tools will materialise.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Google Shopping: self-preferencing is a form of abuse of dominance

Short Reads - On 10 November 2021, the General Court (GC) almost entirely dismissed Google’s action against the European Commission’s Google Shopping decision. According to the European Commission (the Commission), Google illegally favoured its own comparison shopping service by displaying it more prominently in its search results than other comparison shopping services (see our July 2017 Newsletter). The Commission found that Google was abusing its dominant position and imposed a EUR 2.42 billion.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Back to the future – Commission publishes roadmap for green and digital challenges

Short Reads - The Commission’s Communication “A competition policy fit for new challenges” (link) (the “Communication”) identifies key areas in which competition law and policy can support European efforts in dealing with the challenges of the green and digital transitions. The document covers all areas of competition law (antitrust, merger control, and State aid) and identifies various ways in which new and existing tools can contribute to addressing these challenges.

Read more