Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Netherlands

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How

  • 648 Accesses

Abstract

This Chapter provides an overview of the prohibition of abuse of dominance in the Netherlands, as provided for in Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act. Firstly, we explore the definition of "abuse" before providing an analysis of the enforcement practices of the Dutch Competition Authority ("ACM") and the Dutch Courts. Secondly, we consider the competence of both the ACM and the Dutch Courts in relation to the standard of proof which is required in order to establish an abuse of dominance. Lastly, we question the effectiveness of the enforcement policy of the ACM in relation to abuse of dominance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, Official Journal of the European Union of 27 December 2006, L 376, p. 21.

  2. 2.

    Article 1(1) DCA.

  3. 3.

    Before 1 April 2014, the ACM (the Autoriteit Consument en Markt) was called the Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (NMa). For reasons of coherence, in this report reference will be made to the competition authority as “ACM”.

  4. 4.

    See the website of the ACM: https://www.ACM.nl/nl/onderwerpen/concurrentie-en-marktwerking/misbruik-economische-machtspositie/wat-is-een-dominante-positie/.

  5. 5.

    Decision in case no. 2910 of 28 April 2004 (700) (Interpay), para. 138–141.

  6. 6.

    CBb, 15 July 2004, ECLI:NL:CBB:2004:AQ1727 (NOS/Telegraaf).

  7. 7.

    Explanatory memorandum (Kamerstukken II, 1995/96, 24 707, nr. 3) p. 71.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    See the brochure of the ACM: “Misbruik van een economische machtspositie”, October 2009. In this document the ACM also provides a list with examples of what constitutes abuse. https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/publicatie/7103/Misbruik-van-een-economische-machtspositie-/.

  10. 10.

    Decision in case 7475 of 13 June 2013 (40) (Stichting LPEV/Oranje Kruis).

  11. 11.

    Ibid., para. 39.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., para. 40–41.

  13. 13.

    Decision in case no. 2910 of 28 April 2004 (700) (Interpay).

  14. 14.

    CBb, 22 March 2007, ECLI:NL:CBB:2007:BA2598, (Vereniging Vrije Vogel), para 6.3.1. See also for example District Court of Rotterdam, 4 July 2007, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2007:BA9164 (CRV/NMA); see also Visiedocument Inkoopmacht, https://www.acm.nl/nl/download/bijlage/?id=7749, p. 12.

  15. 15.

    CFI, case T-155/04, SELEX Sistemi Integrati v European Commission, ECR 2006 II-04797, pt. 107.

  16. 16.

    ECJ, case C-62/86, AKZO v European Commission ECR 1991 I-3359, pt. 69, and CFI, case T-228/97, Irish Sugar v European Commission ECR 1999 II-2969, pt. 111.

  17. 17.

    CBb, 22 March 2007, ECLI:NL:CBB:2007:BA2598 (Vereniging Vrije Vogel), para 6.3.2.

  18. 18.

    ECJ, case 27/76, United Brands v European Commission, ECR 1976 207.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., pt. 249.

  20. 20.

    Explanatory memorandum (Kamerstukken II, 1995/96, 24 707, nr. 3), p. 10.

  21. 21.

    See for example Decision in case no. 7341 of 15 March 2012 (6) (TransRAbility/Lloyd’s Registrar Nederland); Decision in case no. 7213 of 27 April 2012 (27) (Platform Makers/NOP e.a.); Decision in case no. 7464 of 30 August 2012 (8) (Van der Zwan/Kluwer); Decision in case no. 7489 of 29 September 2012 (16) (Praktijk voor psychologische en pastorale hulpverlening/Zorgverzekeraars Nederland); Decision in case no. 1404 of 8 May 2014 (3229) (Stichting Belangenbehartiging Opstalhouders Harlemmermeer/Hoogheemraadschap Rijnland).

  22. 22.

    Decision in case no. 4296 of 5 January 2011(213) (GasTerra).

  23. 23.

    Decision in case no. 4296 of 30 June 2011 (214) (GasTerra).

  24. 24.

    Decision in case no. 203301 of 6 June 2014 (Buma/Stemra).

  25. 25.

    Decision in case no. 7069 of 2 December 2014 (1832) (AstraZeneca).

  26. 26.

    District court of Midden-Nederland, 10 July 2013, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2013:3245 (EMS/Equens).

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    District court of Midden-Nederland, 10 July 2013, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2013:3245 (EMS/Equens), para. 4.4.21.

  29. 29.

    See the brochure of the ACM: “Misbruik van een economische machtspositie”, October 2009. In this document the ACM also provides a list with examples of what constitutes “abuse”. Available at https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/publicatie/7103/Misbruik-van-een-economische-machtspositie-/.

  30. 30.

    Communication from the Commission—Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, OJ 2009, C 45 p. 2.

  31. 31.

    Official reaction of the management board of the ACM to the SEO report addressed to the Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, reference number 12328452, 23 November 2012.

  32. 32.

    Decision in case no. 6207 of 15 December 2009 (233), (Sandd/TNT).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para. 38.

  34. 34.

    Communication from the Commission—Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, OJ 2009, C 45, p. 2, para. 26.

  35. 35.

    Decision in case no. 6207 of 15 December 2009 (233), (Sandd/TNT), para. 44–56.

  36. 36.

    Decision in case no. 6207 of 21 May 2012 (476), (Sandd/PostNL).

  37. 37.

    Ibid., para. 39–43.

  38. 38.

    Decision in case no. 7194 of 20 August 2012 (75) (Chipshol/Schiphol).

  39. 39.

    CFI, case T-111/96, ITT Promedia v European Commission ECR 1998 II-02937.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., pt. 55.

  41. 41.

    CBb, 8 October 2015, ECLI:NL:CBB:2015:314 (Chipshol/ACM).

  42. 42.

    CBb, 7 October 2010, ECLI:NL:CBB:2010:BN9947 (CRV/NMA).

  43. 43.

    Ibid., para. 4.1.2.

  44. 44.

    Official reaction of the management board of the ACM to the SEO report addressed to the Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, reference number 12328452, 23 November 2012.

  45. 45.

    District court of Rotterdam, 3 July 2013, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:5992, (UPC/T-Mobile) para. 5.11.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., para. 5.12.

  47. 47.

    Amsterdam Court of Appeals, 30 March 2010, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2010:BM1240 (NVM/HPC).

  48. 48.

    Amsterdam Court of Appeals, 12 June 2012, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2012:BX0460 (HPC/NVM).

  49. 49.

    ECJ, case C-7/97, Bronner, ECR 1998 I-07791.

  50. 50.

    Amsterdam Court of Appeals, 12 June 2012, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2012:BX0460 (HPC/NVM), para. 2.27.

  51. 51.

    Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 21 January 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:149 (HPC/NVM).

  52. 52.

    District court of Rotterdam, 25 November 2010, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2010:BO5063 (EasyJet/Schiphol).

  53. 53.

    Brochure of the ACM: ‘Misbruik van een economische machtspositie’, October 2009. In this document the ACM also provides a list with examples of what constitutes ‘abuse’. See https://www.ACM.nl/nl/publicaties/publicatie/7103/Misbruik-van-een-economische-machtspositie-/.

  54. 54.

    R. van der Noll, B. Baarsma, N. Rosenboom and J. van der Voort, SEO-report nr. 2001-63, “An international comparison of the abuse of dominance provision”, Amsterdam, 31 October 2011. Available at http://www.seo.nl/pagina/article/an-international-comparison-of-the-abuse-of-dominance-provision/.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., p. i-iii.

  56. 56.

    Official reaction of the management board of the ACM to the SEO-report addressed to the Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, reference number 12328452, 23 November 2012.

  57. 57.

    See description of the case above in answer to question 3.

  58. 58.

    Decision in case no.5968 of 26 June 2009 (11), (GasTerra).

  59. 59.

    Decision in case no. 203301 of 6 June 2014 (Buma/Stemra).

  60. 60.

    Decision in case no. 6207 of 15 December 2009 (233) (Sandd/TNT).

  61. 61.

    Decision in case no. 7475 of 13 June 2013 (13) (Stichting LPEV/Oranje Kruis).

  62. 62.

    Official reaction of the management board of the ACM to the SEO report addressed to the Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, reference number 12328452, 23 November 2012.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., para. 4.

  65. 65.

    See press release of the European Commission, available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/european-commission-questions-dutch-regulators-analysis-wholesale-market-local-access-telecom.

  66. 66.

    See press release of the ACM on its website concerning the revised market analysis, available at: https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/publicatie/14858/ACM-biedt-aangepast-besluit-ontbundelde-toegang-aan-bij-Europese-Commissie/.

  67. 67.

    As was mentioned before, see for example Decision in case no. 7341 of 15 March 2012 (6) (TransRAbility/Lloyd’s Registrar Nederland), Decision in case no. 7213 of 27 April 2012 (27) (Platform Makers/NOP e.a.), Decision in case no. 7464 of 30 August 2012 (8) (Van der Zwan/Kluwer), Decision in case no. 7489 of 29 September 2012 (16) (Praktijk voor psychologische en pastorale hulpverlening/Zorgverzekeraars Nederland), Decision in case no. 1404 of 8 May 2014 (3229) (Stichting Belangenbehartiging Opstalhouders Harlemmermeer/Hoogheemraadschap Rijnland).

  68. 68.

    CBb, 20 August 2010, ECLI:NL:CBB:2010:BN4700 (Vereniging voor Reizigers/KLM).

  69. 69.

    Ibid., para. 7.2.1 and 7.5.2.1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Van Doorne, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Sarah Beeston & Maria Geilmann

  2. Monopolies Commission, Bonn, Germany

    Maria Geilmann

Authors
  1. Sarah Beeston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Geilmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Beeston .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Këllezi Legal, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

  2. Addleshaw Goddard LLP, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

  3. Kobel Avocat Attorney-at-law, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Beeston, S., Geilmann, M. (2017). The Netherlands. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46891-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46891-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46890-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46891-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation