The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal confirms that a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time according to Art. 6 ECHR can be interpreted as meaning a period of up to two years or longer in an antitrust procedure (Aesculaap)

Introduction The Aesculaap case concerns an infringement of Article 6 of the Dutch Competition Act ("Mw") on the grounds that AUV - the procurement collective and wholesaler of veterinary pharmaceuticals -, and Aesculaap - the only other wholesaler of veterinary pharmaceuticals - had adopted a joint system of exclusion by refusing to supply veterinarians who did not adhere to the internal rules of AUV. The NMa considered this system, operative until 2001, to lead to price distortion and market division amongst the veterinarians. In first instance, the District Court Rotterdam (Rechtbank Rotterdam) reduced the fine imposed for exceeding the reasonable time period by the Netherlands Competition Authority (the "NMa"). Both the NMa and Aesculaap appealed this judgment. One of the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Simmons & Simmons (Brussels)
  • Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Amsterdam)

Quotation

Robert Hardy, Arne Bleeker, The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal confirms that a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time according to Art. 6 ECHR can be interpreted as meaning a period of up to two years or longer in an antitrust procedure (Aesculaap), 3 July 2008, e-Competitions Bulletin July 2008, Art. N° 27211

Visites 1231

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues