Netherlands/EU, 2007: Difference between revisions

From AntitrustWorldWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →
MShapiro (talk | contribs)
64 edits
New page: Score = Governed by: EU law: Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities (Rome Treaty)<ref> Available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legisla...
 
MShapiro (talk | contribs)
64 edits
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


Governed by: EU law: Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities (Rome Treaty)<ref> Available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html</ref> , Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 and Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 1 October 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>''Competition Law in the EU'', at 753-791; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Netherlands/New%20regulations%20on%20economic%20competition.pdf</ref>.
Governed by: EU law: Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities (Rome Treaty)<ref> Available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html</ref> , Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 and Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 1 October 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>''Competition Law in the EU'', at 753-791; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Netherlands/New%20regulations%20on%20economic%20competition.pdf</ref>.
'''Score = 22'''
''Governed by:'' Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 1 October 2007(hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).
<ref>''Competition Law in the EU'', at 753-791; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Netherlands/New%20regulations%20on%20economic%20competition.pdf</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment
|- class="categorydivision"
| 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.<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"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| Articles 56, 69, 71-75 require fines for certain violations.
|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 0
|
|-
|
| Divestitures
| 0
|
|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| Third 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.<ref><I> See Competition Law in the EU</i>, at 457.</ref>
|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| Third 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.<ref><I> See Competition Law in the EU</i>, at 457.</ref>
|-
|
| 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.
|- class="categorydivision"
| 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
|
|- class="categorydivision"
| 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
|
|- class="categorydivision"
| 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.<ref>Case 650, ''Hydro Energy BV v. SEP'', 26.8 1999 (concerning the refusal of third party access to the electricity network).</ref>
|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| Case Law and an adoption of the Article 82 EC has shown this to be impermissible.<ref>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).</ref>
|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| 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
| 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); <i>Competition Law in the EU</i> at 445.</ref>
|-
|
| 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.<ref>''See'', ''Competition Law in the EU'', at 441; Explanatory Memorandum, at 24; NMa decision re exemption 51/''Stibat'' (1998).</ref>
|- class="categorydivision"
| 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.<ref>NMa decision re administrative appeal 1092/I.T. ''Holland v. Microsoft''.</ref>
|-
|
| 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”.<ref>''See'' <I> Competition Law in the EU</I> at 455; NMa decision re exemption 1/''De Telegraaf v. NOS en HMG'' (1998); NMa decision complaint 650/''Hydro Energy v. Sep'' (1999)</ref>
|-
|
| 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.<ref>''See'', ''Competition Law in the EU'', at 441; Explanatory Memorandum, at 24; NMa decision re exemption 51/''Stibat'' (1998).</ref>
|}
== References ==
<references />

Revision as of 17:33, 6 August 2008

Score =

Governed by: EU law: Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities (Rome Treaty)[1] , Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 and Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 1 October 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)[2].


Score = 22

Governed by: Law no. 1997/242 of 22 May 1997 as last amended on 1 October 2007(hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”). [3]

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.[4]
Remedies Fines 1 Articles 56, 69, 71-75 require fines for certain violations.
Prison Sentences 0
Divestitures 0
Private Enforcement 3rd Party Initiation 1 Third 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.[5]
Remedies Available to 3rd Parties 1 Third 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.[6]
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.[7]
Price Setting 1 Case Law and an adoption of the Article 82 EC has shown this to be impermissible.[8]
Discriminatory Pricing 1 Discriminatory pricing and conditions are prohibited as per Article 82 EC.[9]
Predatory Pricing 1 "Prices are regarded as abusive if they are below average variable costs"[10]
Resale Price Maintenance 1 Adopts the EC position and per se bans r.p.m.[11]
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.[12]
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.[13]
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”.[14]
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.[15]

References

  1. ↑ Available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html
  2. ↑ Competition Law in the EU, at 753-791; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Netherlands/New%20regulations%20on%20economic%20competition.pdf
  3. ↑ Competition Law in the EU, at 753-791; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/Netherlands/New%20regulations%20on%20economic%20competition.pdf
  4. ↑ 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).
  5. ↑ See Competition Law in the EU, at 457.
  6. ↑ See Competition Law in the EU, at 457.
  7. ↑ Case 650, Hydro Energy BV v. SEP, 26.8 1999 (concerning the refusal of third party access to the electricity network).
  8. ↑ 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).
  9. ↑ See NMa decision re complaint 13/Diverse klagers v. PTT Post (1998).
  10. ↑ Competition Law in the EU at 454
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ See, Competition Law in the EU, at 441; Explanatory Memorandum, at 24; NMa decision re exemption 51/Stibat (1998).
  13. ↑ NMa decision re administrative appeal 1092/I.T. Holland v. Microsoft.
  14. ↑ See Competition Law in the EU at 455; NMa decision re exemption 1/De Telegraaf v. NOS en HMG (1998); NMa decision complaint 650/Hydro Energy v. Sep (1999)
  15. ↑ See, Competition Law in the EU, at 441; Explanatory Memorandum, at 24; NMa decision re exemption 51/Stibat (1998).
Retrieved from "https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Netherlands/EU,_2007&oldid=2976"