Netherlands 1999: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
JWSchneider (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Score = | '''Score = 21''' | ||
''Governed by:'' Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 6 October 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”). | ''Governed by:'' Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 6 October 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”). | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Extraterritoriality | | Extraterritoriality | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| The Competition Act applies to any company or violation that has a substantial effect on Dutch competition regardless of where it occurred. | | The Competition Act applies to any company or violation that has a substantial effect on Dutch competition regardless of where it occurred.<ref>Bart L.P. van Reeken & Steven B Noë, "Competition Law in the Netherlands" in <i>Competition Law in the EU</i> 417 (Floris O.W. Vogelaar et. al., eds).</ref> | ||
|- class="categorydivision" | |- class="categorydivision" | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| | | | ||
| Public Interest (Pro D) | | Public Interest (Pro D) | ||
| | | 1 | ||
| | | Article 47(1) states that a Minister may allow an otherwise prohibited merger to go through if doing so is in the public interest. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
| Discriminatory pricing and conditions are prohibited as per Article 82 EC.<ref>''See'' NMa decision re complaint 13/''Diverse klagers v. PTT Post'' (1998).</ref> | | Discriminatory pricing and conditions are prohibited as per Article 82 EC.<ref>''See'' NMa decision re complaint 13/''Diverse klagers v. PTT Post'' (1998).</ref> | ||
|- | |||
| | |||
| Predatory Pricing | |||
| 1 | |||
| "Prices are regarded as abusive if they are below average variable costs"<ref><i>Competition Law in the EU</i> at 454</ref> | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| Resale Price Maintenance | | Resale Price Maintenance | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| Adopts the EC position and per se bans r.p.m.<ref>''See'' Michaela Drahos, ''Convergence of the Competition Laws and Policies in the European Community'', 146 (Kluwer Law International: The Hague, 2001); see NMa decision re complaint 146/''Gemeente Dinxperlo v. IBM'' (1999) and NMa decision re exemption 524/''Postkantoren'' (1999).</ref> | | Adopts the EC position and per se bans r.p.m.<ref>''See'' Michaela Drahos, ''Convergence of the Competition Laws and Policies in the European Community'', 146 (Kluwer Law International: The Hague, 2001); see NMa decision re complaint 146/''Gemeente Dinxperlo v. IBM'' (1999) and NMa decision re exemption 524/''Postkantoren'' (1999); <i>Competition Law in the EU</i> at 445.</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
Latest revision as of 20:18, 30 June 2008
Score = 21
Governed by: Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 6 October 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”). [1]
| Category | Subcategory | Score | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Extraterritoriality | 1 | The Competition Act applies to any company or violation that has a substantial effect on Dutch competition regardless of where it occurred.[2] |
| Remedies | Fines | 1 | Articles 56, 69, 71-75 require fines for certain violations. |
| Prison Sentences | 0 | ||
| Divestitures | 0 | ||
| Private Enforcement | 3rd Party Initiation | 1 | 3rd parties can rely on Articles 6(1) and 24(1) of the Competition Act to bring an action for damages or ask for an injunction. |
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties | 1 | 3rd parties can rely on Articles 6(1) and 24(1) of the Competition Act to bring an action for damages or ask for an injunction. | |
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings | 1 | “Interested Parties” have several rights in the course of proceedings including the right to appeal and participate in the case. | |
| Merger Notification | Voluntary | 0 | |
| Mandatory | 3 | Article 34 requires notification of concentrations to the director general. | |
| Pre-merger | 2 | Article 34 says that this notification must occur 4 weeks before the merger. | |
| Post-merger | 0 | ||
| Merger Assessment | Dominance | 1 | Articles 37(2) and 41(2) state that a merger may require further investigation if there is evidence that it will create a dominant position. |
| Restriction of Competition | 1 | Articles 37(2) and 41(2) state that a merger may require further investigation if it may significantly restrict effective competition. | |
| Public Interest (Pro D) | 1 | Article 47(1) states that a Minister may allow an otherwise prohibited merger to go through if doing so is in the public interest. | |
| Public Interest (Pro Authority) | 1 | Article 41(3) considers whether one or both of the companies is “entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest” in which case the Commission must decide what effect allowing or not allowing the merger would have on their performance of that service. | |
| Other | 0 | ||
| Efficiency | 0 | ||
| Dominance | Limits Access | 1 | Case law has shown this to be disallowed. |
| Abusive Acts | 1 | Article 24 says that undertakings are prohibited from abusing a dominant position.[3] | |
| Price Setting | 1 | Case Law and an adoption of the Article 82 EC has shown this to be impermissible.[4] | |
| Discriminatory Pricing | 1 | Discriminatory pricing and conditions are prohibited as per Article 82 EC.[5] | |
| Predatory Pricing | 1 | "Prices are regarded as abusive if they are below average variable costs"[6] | |
| Resale Price Maintenance | 1 | Adopts the EC position and per se bans r.p.m.[7] | |
| Obstacles to Entry | 0 | ||
| Efficiency Defense | 1 | Adopts the EC position (as per Art. 86(2) EEC) on allowing Article 24(1) of the Competition Act to be deemed inapplicable when in the interest of economic progress.[8] | |
| Restrictive Trade Practices | Price Fixing | 1 | Adopted Article 8(2)(a) EC which has shown this to be impermissible. |
| Tying | 1 | Tying is impermissible in accordance with the EC and case law.[9] | |
| Market Division | 1 | Adopted the EC position banning closed exclusive distribution agreements. | |
| Output Restraint | 0 | ||
| Market Sharing | 0 | ||
| Eliminating Competitors | 0 | ||
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging | 0 | ||
| Supply Refusal | 1 | Supply refusal is sometimes illegal, particularly in cases involving “essential facilities”.[10] | |
| Efficiency Defense | 1 | Adopts the EC position (as per Art. 86(2) EEC) on allowing Article 24(1) of the Competition Act to be deemed inapplicable when in the interest of economic progress.[11] |
References
- ↑ Competition Law in the EU, at 753-791; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Netherlands/New%20regulations%20on%20economic%20competition.pdf
- ↑ Bart L.P. van Reeken & Steven B Noë, "Competition Law in the Netherlands" in Competition Law in the EU 417 (Floris O.W. Vogelaar et. al., eds).
- ↑ Case 650, Hydro Energy BV v. SEP, 26.8 1999 (concerning the refusal of third party access to the electricity network).
- ↑ NMa decision re complaint 13/Diverse klagers v. PTT Post (1998)(involving excessive prices charged for PO boxes); Case C-26-86, Akzo v. Commission, [1991] ECR I-3359 (involving predatory pricing).
- ↑ See NMa decision re complaint 13/Diverse klagers v. PTT Post (1998).
- ↑ Competition Law in the EU at 454
- ↑ See Michaela Drahos, Convergence of the Competition Laws and Policies in the European Community, 146 (Kluwer Law International: The Hague, 2001); see NMa decision re complaint 146/Gemeente Dinxperlo v. IBM (1999) and NMa decision re exemption 524/Postkantoren (1999); Competition Law in the EU at 445.
- ↑ See, Competition Law in the EU, at 441; Explanatory Memorandum, at 24; NMa decision re exemption 51/Stibat (1998).
- ↑ NMa decision re administrative appeal 1092/I.T. Holland v. Microsoft.
- ↑ See NMa decision re exemption 1/De Telegraaf v. NOS en HMG (1998); NMa decision complaint 650/Hydro Energy v. Sep (1999)
- ↑ See, Competition Law in the EU, at 441; Explanatory Memorandum, at 24; NMa decision re exemption 51/Stibat (1998).