We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 145

Silence is golden: ex-employees do not have to snitch on former employers

  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • -
  • Netherlands
  • -
  • May 9 2013

The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal has resolved a long-running dispute on the scope of a company's right to remain silent

Court stays proceedings in order to await ACM report

  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • -
  • Netherlands
  • -
  • January 9 2014

To prevent antitrust skeletons from coming out of the closet after an acquisition, it is advisable not only to perform due diligence, but also to keep an eye on the duration of the liability provisions in the purchase agreement

Hardcore restrictions still require an "appreciability check"

  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • -
  • Netherlands
  • -
  • January 4 2012

In line with settled EU case law, the Supreme Court ruled that the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal (Court) was right to qualify the termination of a distribution contract by bicycle supplier Batavus under pressure of one of its largest customers as a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object of which there is no need to consider its actual effects

Judgment in GSK's Spanish dual pricing case

  • NautaDutilh
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • October 7 2009

In March 1998, GSK notified its Spanish dual pricing arrangements to the European Commission in order to obtain a declaration that these arrangements were not caught by the prohibition of anticompetitive agreements laid down in Article 81(1) EC or, failing that, an exemption in light of the efficiency gains obtained by countering parallel trade in pharmaceutical products

The Gneral Court annuls the 31.66 EUR million fine imposed on Koninklijke Grolsch NV for its participation in a cartel on the Dutch beer market

  • Squire Sanders Hammonds
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • October 7 2011

The General Court has handed down its judgment in the appeal by Koninklijke Grolsch NV against a Commission decision finding that it had infringed Article 101(1) TFEU by operating an illegal price-fixing cartel in the beer market in the Netherlands

Unlawful information exchange by public announcement

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • February 25 2014

Two recent announcements by competition authorities provide a timely reminder of the wide application of competition law to communications that

Under a pre-Expedia instruction of the Dutch Supreme Court, the Arnhem Appeals Court applies the appreciability test to an object infringement

  • Stibbe
  • -
  • Netherlands
  • -
  • May 2 2013

On 26 March 2013, the Arnhem Appeals Court rendered its judgment in the Batavus case (LJN: BZ5188) , following remand instructions from the Dutch

Parental liability

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • October 11 2011

On 15 September 2011, the General Court annulled a fine of 31.66 million imposed by the European Commission on Koninklijke Grolsch NV (“Grolsch”) for its alleged participation in a cartel between Dutch beer producers (case T-23407 Koninklijke Grolsch NV v European Commission

Dutch competition law: ex-employees have the right to remain silent when interviewed by the NMa

  • NautaDutilh
  • -
  • Netherlands
  • -
  • December 24 2012

On 21 December 2012, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, "CBb"), the highest court for competition cases

Amicus curiae: European Commission as willy-nilly best friend?

  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • June 30 2009

The European Court of Justice has ruled that the European Commission can intervene as amicus curiae in the appeal against the ruling by the District Court of Haarlem on the tax deductibility of fines imposed by the European Commission for cartel infringements