|9:15||Chair’s Welcome Address|
Weijer VerLoren van Themaat, advocaat, Houthoff
|9:30||Keynote speech: Security of Supply|
Supply issues and the quest for European strategic autonomy has become more topical than ever. Professor Jenny will discuss with us how this affects competition policy. Competition may enhance the EU’s resilience, as may a stronger interaction and alignment with trade and industrial policy. Moreover, in enforcement a more long term vision on consumer welfare may be required.
Frédéric Jenny, professor of Economics at ESSEC Paris Business School and Chairman of the OECD Competition Committee (since 1994)
|10.30u||Morning networking break|
|11.00u||Judgments in Dutch competition law of the past year|
Ruben Elkerbout, advocaat, Stek,
Anke Prompers, Appeals Coordinator at ACM
|13.30u||Breakout sessions, round 1|
Three parallel breakout sessions are available to choose from.
Session A: Economic highlights
Discussion of the key economic findings in Dutch competition law decisions and judgments during the past year, including market analysis and regulatory decisions.
· Gulbahar Tezel, economist PwC
· Paul de Bijl, Chief Economist ACM
Session B: Private enforcement
Developments in private enforcementand how they affect traditional competition law and vice versa.
· Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek, lawyer DeBrauw Blackstone Westbroek
· Martijn van Dam, lawyer Lemstra Van der Korst
· Sophie Gilliam, lawyer BarentsKrans
· Sanne Bouwers, lawyer Scott+Scott
· Nima Lorje, lawyer NautaDutilh
Session C: ACM’s powers
For years, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) has carried out market studies, such as those into app stores, cloud services, Mobility as a Service (MaaS), IP interconnection, Big Tech in payment transactions, the roll-out of fibre optics, etc. Unlike in some other countries, however, once ACM establishes a market failure, it does not have any further powers to remedy such failure.
ACM is therefore considering whether its current legal authority to perform market analyses should be expanded to include the power to impose obligations on market operators to improve the functioning of the analysed markets. Would this serve any purpose? Would it be feasible? What lessons can we draw from experiences in other countries? Would it pose any risks for ACM, for example by creating a perception that not imposing any remedies on the analysed markets means that no issues were identified?
· Bart Noé, ACM
· Stijn Huijts, lawyer at Geradin & Partners, London
|14:30||Break to change rooms|
|14:40||Session round 2:|
Session D: Litigation in economic concentration oversight
It is becoming increasingly common that merger decisions by ACM and the European Commission are challenged in court. This often takes the form of complicated merger litigation and relates to both blocked and approved transactions. The issues that the European courts, the District Court of Rotterdam and the Appeals Tribunal deal with in these cases are similar.
What level of analysis and evidence should be expected from the relevant authorities? Are the codes of conduct appropriate? What role do third parties play? How would the markets develop without the transaction? If a decision to block a transaction is reversed, what would the situation be, and what would be needed for a claim for damages? Could the buyer claim for damages for break-up fees? In what situations should the matter be referred back to ACM?
The panel will discuss these questions and share and discuss experiences in litigation from several different perspectives.
· Winfred Knibbeler, advocaat, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
· Jotte Mulder, advocaat, Pels Rijcken
· Esther Mollen, teammanager Competition ACM
· Theon van Dijk, econoom RBB Economics
Session E: How ACM and other competition authorities decide their priorities
The capacity of competition authorities is limited. Instead of investigating every single complaint or indication of any wrongdoing, the authorities need to prioritise which ones to analyse.
How do competition authorities decide what to prioritise, and what criteria do they use for deciding whether to initiate an analysis on their own initiative, to review and reject complaints, or otherwise promote the markets’ functioning through commitments, settlements, clemency arrangements, informal opinions, policy memorandums or market analyses?
This session provides a brief presentation of the conclusions of an empirical survey into how priorities are decided in the 27 Member States, by the European Commission and the CMA, with a particular focus on the Netherlands.
Where is the boundary between legal certainty and a broad margin for the competition authorities’ discretion, and in particular the obligation to analyse all the information diligently and impartially? What were the considerations for rejecting Riedel’s complaint against Coca-Cola in the Netherlands?
· Kati Cseres, Associate Professor of Law at the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (ACELG), University of Amsterdam
· Pauline Kuipers, lawyer Bird&Bird
· Michiel Denkers, head Competition ACM
· Nicole Rosenboom, economist Oxera
Session F: Investment Screening Bill
The Dutch Foreign Direct Investment Screening Bill (Wetsvoorstel veiligheidstoets investeringen, fusies en overnames) was passed by the Dutch House of Representatives on 19 April and by the Dutch Senate on 17 May. Once the bill becomes law, certain investments, mergers and acquisitions will need to be disclosed to the Dutch Investment Review Agency (BTI), a division of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. The panel will discuss and explain problem areas in terms of the substance and procedures and address the trends for FDI reviews in Europe. It will also look at past experiences with reviewing investments in the energy and telecommunications sectors.
· Ivo Nobel, head of the Investment Assessment Office at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
· Victorine Dijkstra, advocaat, Houthoff
|15:40||Afternoon networking break|
|16:10||Award ceremony: 2022 Master’s Thesis Prizes|
The three nominees for the Foundation’s Best Competition Law Thesis of the Year Awards will each give a short pitch, after which the jury will award the prizes.
|16:30||25 years of the Dutch Competition Act|
· Roy op het Veld, writer and journalist
· Paul Glazener, judge Court of Appeal The Hague
· Hans Vijlbrief, Secretary of State
|Interview Competition Law in the past, present and future|
· AW Kist, director-general NMa 1998-2003
· Pieter Kalbfleisch, director-general NMa 2003-2011
· Chris Fonteijn, chairman OPTA 2005 – 2013, chairman NMa 2011-2013, chairman ACM 2013-2018
· Martijn Snoep, chairman ACM 2018 – now
Moderators: Roos Elemans, lawyer Stibbe, and Weijer VerLoren van Themaat, lawyer Houthoff.
|17:15||Event ends, reception starts at KIT, sponsored by RBB Economics|
Location: Restaurant De Kas, sponsored by RBB Economics
Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen
1092 AD Amsterdam
Restaurant De Kas
Kamerlingh Onneslaan 3
1097 DE Amsterdam
The KIT does not have parking facilities. You can park on the public road in the area. The nearest parking garage is:
1093 KP Amsterdam
(from here a 10-minute walk or three stops with tram 19)
From Central Station: tram 14 (Alexanderplein stop)
From Muiderpoort station: tram 3 (stop Linnaeusstraat)
From Station Zuid: metro 51 to Weesperplein and tram 7 or 19 (Alexanderplein stop)
Drinks and dinner are sponsored by: