Wilko Van Weert

McDermott Will & Emery (Brussels)
Lawyer (Partner)

Wilko van Weert is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office. His practice focuses on EU competition, EU regulatory and EU trade law, with a particular emphasis on the interface between competition and intellectual property law. This is reflected in his significant representation of clients in the media and broadcasting sector, as well as those in industries such as high-tech electronics, automotive, aviation, biotechnology, oil and paper. In addition to his experience as a private practitioner, Wilko has also worked on the side of the regulator, as senior counsel to the Dutch Competition Authority (NMa). He has advocated and litigated matters before the European Commission and the EU Courts in Luxembourg, most recently in a number of high-profile merger control cases against the European Commission. Wilko has also successfully handled corporate claims for damages resulting from illicit cartel behavior.


Linked authors

McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)
White & Case (Milan)
Anderson Mori & Tomotsune (Tokyo)
Anderson Mori & Tomotsune (Tokyo)
DG COMP (Brussels)
McDermott Will & Emery (Brussels)
Oxera (London)
McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)


Wilko van Weert
Wilko Van Weert 31 May 2017 Brussels


1035 Bulletin

Naoko Takasaki, Shigeyoshi Ezaki, Wilko Van Weert The Osaka High Court issues an injunction preventing a taxi company from physically blocking independent taxi drivers lining up and acquiring customers at taxi stands outside two stations and awarded damages to the independent taxi drivers (Drivers / Shintetsu)


I. Introduction On 31 October 2014, the Osaka High Court (“Court”) found that Shintetsu engaged in an unfair trade practice in violation of the AMA by physically preventing the Drivers from seeking and acquiring customers at taxicab stands outside two Kobe Electric Railway Co., Ltd’s stations (...)

Naoko Takasaki, Shigeyoshi Ezaki, Wilko Van Weert The Tokyo High Court recognizes that providing advice or guidance to franchisees to sell products at “recommended price” is indeed an abuse of a superior bargaining position (SEJ)


I. Introduction A private party is entitled to file an Article 25 suit against a party that has committed a certain act in violation of AMA, including but not limited to unfair trade practice by abusing of superior bargaining position, on condition that there is a final and binding (...)

Wilko Van Weert The Japanese Federal Trade Commission issues a communication on the coordination of relief supplies’ delivery clarifying that such coordination does not raise antitrust concerns


This article has been selected for the business category, anticompetitive practices section of the 2012 Antiturst Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has issued two Communications on the extent to which industry (...)

Send a message