Netherlands: Competition Newsletter - April 2013

Silence is golden: ex-employees don't have to snitch on former employers

The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal has resolved a long-lasting dispute on the scope of a company's right to remain silent. It ruled that ex-employees can invoke this right when questioned by the NMa (now: ACM)1 in connection with an investigation into their former employer. In 2009, the NMa imposed record fines on three ex-employees for failure to cooperate in an investigation into possible anti-competitive conduct by their former employer.2 The ex-employees refused to cooperate, arguing that they had the right to remain silent, a right acknowledged by the NMa, but only with in regard to the company under investigation and its current employees.3 Unlike the European Commission, the NMa is authorised to impose fines not only on companies but also on individuals for failure to cooperate with an investigation.4 

According to the NMa, ex-employees do not have a right to remain silent in cases where its investigation is targeted at the company only.5 In such cases, only individuals interviewed by the NMa on behalf of the company can rely on this right, since an extension of this right to ex-employees would harm the effectiveness of its enforcement powers. The District Court of Rotterdam confirmed the NMa's point of view in the appeals by two of the three ex-employees. The court reiterated earlier case law in which it was held that if a company is interviewed, the right to remain silent can be invoked by anyone who "belongs to the company and through whom the company is being questioned". Accordingly, the right to remain silent applies to individuals in so far as they can make statements on behalf of the company which may lead to self-incrimination by the company. An ex-employee no longer belongs to the company and thus cannot be questioned on behalf of the company, but only as an individual. As a result, he can no longer rely on the company's right to remain silent, irrespective of whether his statements incriminate the company.

In the appeal against the District Court's judgment, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that such a restrictive interpretation of the right to remain silent will deprive the company of effective protection during investigations. The fact that the employees are no longer employed by the company does not justify such a restrictive approach, since the ex-employees were questioned on the company's behaviour at the time of their employment. The Tribunal overturned the District Court's ruling, thus settling the scope of a company's right to remain silent exercised through ex-employees once and for all.

Health care concentrations: ACM keeps finger on pulse?

The health care sector is likely to stay on the ACM's radar. Not only has the application of the separate notification thresholds for concentrations in the health care sector been extended by another five years, the number of hospitals intending to merge is also rising: the ACM expects a minimum of seven hospital mergers this year and has designated the health care sector as one of its priorities. The bargaining power of health insurers appears to be a significant factor in the ACM's merger assessment and recently resulted in a rather unusual solution in the clearance of three hospital mergers. The minister has indicated that the increase in scale requires a "concentration-effects" test by the Dutch Health Care Authority, in addition to concentration control, as well as an amendment of the policy rules on concentrations between health care providers so as to include concentrations between health insurers.

The Minister of Economic Affairs announced in October last year that the lower merger notification thresholds for health care mergers, scheduled to be repealed on 1 January 2013, will continue to apply for another five years. Many health care concentrations fall outside the "regular" notification thresholds due to the health care companies' low turnovers. These concentrations may still, however, have a negative impact on competition due to the often narrow scope of the relevant geographic markets involved. This is particularly detrimental to the health care sector as it is still in transition to a demand-driven system. The lower notification thresholds are aimed at resolving this problem by bringing more health care concentrations under the ACM's scrutiny through notification. According to the Minister, the NMa (now: ACM) 6 has reviewed twice as many concentrations in the last four years as it would have done without the lower health care notification thresholds. A number of these concentrations had (potential) anti-competitive effects, thus proving the effectiveness of the lower thresholds.

Health care organisations will therefore still need to notify the ACM of concentrations if in the previous calendar year:

  1.  at least two of the companies concerned each generated a turnover of more than EUR 5.5 million by providing healthcare services, and
  2. the combined worldwide turnover of the companies concerned exceeded EUR 55 million, and
  3. at least two of the companies concerned each achieved a turnover in the Netherlands of at least EUR 10 million.

According to the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, however, health care mergers need to be subject to a stricter scrutiny than merger control alone. In order to safeguard the quality and continuity of health care, a "concentration-effects" test - to be performed by the Dutch Health Care Authority - should be introduced for intended health care concentrations prior to the ACM's merger control assessment. In addition, the policy rules on mergers between health care providers should be extended to include concentrations between health care insurers in order to oblige the ACM to extensively substantiate its market delimitation.

The more stringent scrutiny of health care mergers through additional tests and lower merger thresholds seems to be at odds with the ACM's clearance of three hospital mergers in November last year on the basis of a self-imposed annual price ceiling instead of an official remedy. Due to the price ceiling's voluntary nature, the ACM has no legal basis for enforcing compliance, but intends to hold the hospitals publicly accountable for any quality decrease or excessive price increase resulting from the mergers. The ACM is, however, confident that the health insurers' bargaining power will guarantee the best possible price-quality ratio, thus leaving the price ceiling to act as a safety net only. Last year, the Dutch cabinet gave health insurers a leading role in the healthcare system by providing them with more opportunities and incentives to buy at competitive prices. According to Henk Don, member of the ACM Board, the health insurers "have already demonstrated that they are able to influence the market by focusing on health care quality. The insured thus benefit directly".

Need to beat the "fear factor"? UTPs in the B2B supply chain

Most terms in contractual relations are the result of tough but fair negotiations between trading partners. However, sometimes "weaker" business partners are confronted by unfair trading practices (UTPs) and do not speak up in fear of losing the commercial relationship. UTPs initiatives at national, EU and ECN level initially focused on the food supply chain but have now been extended to the non-food side. At national level, pilots have been set up with a number of representatives of the agro-food sector and the textiles industry to implement a code of conduct similar to the "Principles of Good Practice" drafted by the Expert Platform set up by the European Commission within the framework of the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain.7 At EU level, the European Commission is taking stock of UTPs in both the food and non-food sector through a Green Paper. Interested parties have until 30 April 2013 to submit their views to the Commission on how best to beat the "fear factor".

 The significant increase in EU food prices at all levels of the supply chain over the last years caused the NMa (now ACM8, the European Commission and other national competition authorities within the European Competition Network (ECN) to look into the functioning of the food supply chain and the use of UTPs. The main conclusion of these initiatives is that the competition rules are not the best tool to tackle most UTPs. At ECN level, a large number of ECN competition authorities identified UTPs in the food sector linked to imbalances in bargaining power which escape the prohibition against abuse of a dominant position. Similarly, at national level an NMa study on pricing "from farm to fork" concluded that supermarkets are not dominant in the pricing process of food products despite significant food price increases and thus remain untouched under the competition rules. The Minister of Economic Affairs recently commissioned a study on how best to deal with UTPs in contractual negotiations. According to this study, UTPs can be tackled through self-regulation, provided a code of conduct is drafted with clear-cut rules on what qualifies as an UTP, combined with an effective enforcement mechanism. Pilots in the agro-food and textiles sectors to draft such a code of conduct have now been set up with the minister's support. The first results of these pilots are expected to be published in early 2014.

So far, the European Commission has kept a low profile in resolving UTPs as it considers most cases in the food sector to have a national dimension, falling under the responsibility of the national competition authorities.9 But the increased concentration and vertical integration across the EU in the B2B food and non-food supply chain have moved the Commission to action. In 2009, the Commission adopted a Communication aimed at improving the functioning of the food supply chain in the EU in 2009. A High Level Forum for a Better Functioning of the Food Supply Chain was set up to implement, among other things, the initiatives proposed in the Communication. This resulted in a set of Principles of Good Practicein vertical relations in the food supply chain, currently being implemented on a voluntary basis by a number of trade associations active in the European food supply chain. Furthermore, a "Task Force Food" was established within DG Competition in 2012 to keep an eye on the food sector for a period of two years. And most recently, a Green Paper was launched to assess the different options to resolve UTPs at either national or EU-level by identifying seven types of UTPs together with possible fair practices. Interested parties have until 30 April 2013 to submit their views. The Commission will use these views to come up with appropriate next steps in the second half of this year. 

First substantive ruling on cartel damages

The District Court East Netherlands has ruled that ABB must compensate TenneT, the operator of the Dutch electricity grid, for the damages it suffered as a result of the Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS) cartel. In 2007, the European Commission fined eleven groups of companies over EUR 750 million for participating in a cartel for GIS projects. ABB received full immunity from fines under the Commission's leniency programme, but will nevertheless need to cough up now. The exact amount of damages to be paid to TenneT will be determined in separate proceedings. This is the first substantive ruling on cartel damages in the Netherlands.

Following the Commission's decision, TenneT claimed damages for the 1993 purchase of a GIS-installation from ABB following a tender procedure in which ABB offered the best price. The court found that even though the Commission decision does not explicitly mention the Dutch GIS projects, it does establish that ABB participated in a worldwide cartel which had a particular impact on the EEA and thus, according to the court, also on the Netherlands. This, in combination with the fact that ABB failed to substantiate why the cartel would not apply to the Dutch project, made it safe to assume that the price paid by TenneT for the GIS-installation was affected by the cartel.

ABB's argument that TenneT's damages claim had lapsed was rejected by the court. ABB argued that the statutory five-year limitation period for damages claims started on 14 May 2004, one day after the European Commission's press release announcing the launch of an investigation into the GIS sector and ABB's subsequent press release stating that an internal compliance audit had revealed that certain ABB employees were involved in anti-competitive activities. TenneT's damages claim of 24 June 2010 was therefore too late. The court did not agree: the limitations period commences once the victim has knowledge of the damage and the parties liable for it. The press releases provided TenneT with insufficient knowledge to conclude it was a cartel victim.

Furthermore, the court considered it highly likely that TenneT sustained actual damage, as the object and effect of a cartel is, almost by definition, to cause customers to pay more for a product than they would under competitive market conditions. Although the exact amount of damages still needs to be established in follow-up proceedings, the court indicated that a comparison between offers made by ABB during and after the cartel - resulting in a 54% price overcharge according to a report submitted by TenneT - would make a suitable calculation method. ABB's argument that TenneT did not suffer any loss because it passed on the overcharge to its customers was rejected by the court. According to the court, potential "benefits" gained by a cartel victim may in some cases be off-set against the damage sustained, if (i) there is a sufficient causal link between the benefits and the harmful event and (ii) it is reasonable to deduct these benefits from the damages to be paid by the cartel participant. In the court's view, the latter condition had not been fulfilled in the case at hand, provided that TenneT uses ABB's compensation to the benefit of its customers by reducing its energy prices.

The TenneT ruling can still be appealed and the exact amount of damages will have to be determined in separate damages assessment proceedings. Nevertheless, the ruling provides useful pointers for cartel damages claims in the Netherlands.


1.The NMa, the Netherlands Consumer Authority and the Dutch Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority (OPTA) joined forces on 1 April 2013, creating a new regulator: the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM).

2.See our Competition Newsletters of July 2009 and November 2009.

3.It should be noted that employees and former employees can be fined individually for anti-competitive acts committed after 1 October 2007. In such event, they do have a right to remain silent during the investigation.

4.Regulation 1/2003 (OJ 2003, L1/1) does not authorise the European Commission to impose fines on staff members. The European Commission can, however, interview staff members under Articles 19 and 20(2)(e) of Regulation 1/2003. However, only in the latter case may a fine be imposed on the undertaking for failure to respond to a question (see Article 23(1)(d) of Regulation 1/2003).

5.Employees and former employees can now also be fined individually for illegal acts committed after 1 October 2007. In such case, these individuals should have a right to remain silent during the investigation.

6.The NMa, the Netherlands Consumer Authority and the Dutch Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority (OPTA) joined forces on 1 April 2013, creating a new regulator: the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM).

7.The European Commission set up a High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to implement a roadmap of initiatives to improve the competitiveness of the agro-food industry in cooperation with the stakeholders. The Forum is composed of representatives of selected Member States, European companies dealing with food production, processing or distribution, professional associations and non-governmental organisations representing the citizens' expectations.

8.The NMa, the Netherlands Consumer Authority and the Dutch Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority (OPTA) joined forces on 1 April 2013, creating a new regulator: the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM).

9.The Commission did not initiate a sector inquiry into the food sector. In the words of Commissioner Almunia: "Maybe we will need one day to launch a sectoral enquiry in this sector, but so far what we need to know is what is going on and if we should act at the EU level because the [national authorities] are not able to tackle the problems". See Mlex, DG Comp 'task force' examines need for EU action on food-chain problems, 8 March 2012.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions