Today the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in TenneT/ABB on the
application of the passing-on defence in cartel damage cases. The
case is relevant for both claimants and defendants in cartel damage
cases because the Supreme Court explained the criteria for the
passing-on defence under Dutch law.
The passing-on defence in cartel damage cases means that the party
that is held liable for the cartel damage argues that the claimant
has suffered no or less damage because the claimant passed on the
price overcharge in whole or in part in the price of its products
The Supreme Court had to answer the question whether the passing-on
defence is a defence that disputes the amount of the damage or
whether it must be characterised as a deduction of collateral
benefits from the amount of the damage. In the latter case, it must
be established that there is a causal link between the harmful
event and the benefits and that deduction of the benefits is
reasonable. The Supreme Court held that a court may choose between
these approaches. According to the Supreme Court, the requirements
are on balance the same in both approaches, especially that in both
approaches the deduction must be reasonable. The decision of the
court of appeals did not clarify whether a reasonableness test
should be applied.
Also, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof that part or
all of the price overcharge has been passed on is with the liable
party. With this judgment, the Supreme Court anticipates the
implementation of the Cartel Damage Directive (2014/104/EU). The
Dutch bill implementing the Cartel Damage Directive (34 490) would
have to enter into force by 26 December 2016 at the latest.
For the entire text of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dutch
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The competition law enforcement in Turkey is based on private and public enforcement pillars. TCA has sole discretion to enforce the Competition Act whereas the litigations initiated by the victims of anti-competitive conduct are seen in private courts.
Daiichi Sankyo İlaç Ticaret Ltd. Şti. ("Daiichi"), a globally active company in the distribution, sale, marketing and importation of pharmaceutical products, and Aksel Ecza Deposu A.Ş. ("Aksel"), a drug wholesaler, entered into a vertical exclusivity agreement ("Agreement").
The Competition Board concluded its investigation with regard to the booking services provided by Booking.com B.V. and by Bookingdotcom Destek Hizmetleri LLC, operating as the Turkish representative of Booking.com.
For the past few years, Turkey has tended to use various trade remedy tools more frequently, thus the number of investigations increases in depth and breadth with the aim of supporting domestic industry...
The CAT in the UK heard on 17 January 2017 an application by Flynn Pharma Ltd and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Ltd to suspend the Competition and Markets Authority's direction to reduce the price of an epilepsy drug.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).