NMa awarded 3,5 stars in international rating of competition authorities

The Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) has been awarded 3.5 stars in the annual 'Rating Enforcement' survey of the Global Competition Review (GCR). In 2005 the NMa scored 3.75 stars (out of a maximum of five). Competition authorities in the United States and Great Britain, as well as the European Commission are ranked above the NMa, though it shares its position with eleven countries including Canada and France. As compared to previous years, a slight decline is apparent. However, the NMa maintains a prominent position among the authorities rated, as in earlier years. On the whole, the authorities show less marked differences: 'The playing field is being levelled. There is now little substantial difference between the analytical skills of the leading authorities', states the GCR report.

In its report the GCR acknowledges that the NMa is developing a new investigative portfolio (shedding its focus on the construction industry) and that it is in sixth position as regards cartel fines in relation to the size of the Dutch population. In general, Dutch competition lawyers speak out positively about the NMa, commenting that 'it compares well with its international peers'. There is criticism too. According to the GCR, the NMa does not close enough cases on the abuse of a dominant position. Also, case-processing time in such cases is too long. In this respect, the NMa questions whether the GCR has duly considered alternative enforcement procedures ('direct settlement'), including compliance programmes and structural changes in a sector. Such procedures, explicitly added to the European Commission agenda recently, have been successfully implemented by the NMa for a number of years. Furthermore, GCR is under the impression that the NMa is becoming more bureaucratic. It also advises the competition authority to improve its track record in court.


Pieter Kalbfleisch, Chairman of the Board of the NMa, comments on the results: 'Our rating position has dropped by a quarter star in comparison to last year. We strongly feel this should be taken as encouragement. Several points of concern are justly raised; some are in line with the findings of the Netherlands Court of Audit, as set out in its report on the NMa's functioning published earlier this month. It concluded that there is room for improvement to case-processing time. We try to work as efficiently as possible, for the benefit of business and ourselves, by tightening and professionalising procedures. We focus on refreshing our investigative portfolio; we actively look for new cases and will continue to do so, applying new methods in the process. Of course, the abuse of dominant positions has our attention, though we will assess all cases with an eye to the effect of our enforcement intervention on the Dutch economy. Consumer interests are of central importance here. I do not want to run away from the fact that the NMa is not always successful in court, but I contest that the NMa has a 'poor track record'. It should be taken into account that our area of activity (enforcement) and the legal field in which we work are in development. We come up against boundaries imposed by court rulings. As a learning organisation, we profit from such experiences. Court rulings are not always favourable, though not continually unfavourable either. In sum: the CGR rating provides us with an opportunity to explore new possibilities for improvement. We focus on innovation, considering not just markets but taking a close look at ourselves also.'


GCR annually publishes a comparative survey of competition authorities in 38 countries. Its editors compile the star ranking on the basis of information provided by a large and select panel of competition lawyers, in-house counsel, economists and questionnaires submitted by the competition authorities themselves.