The Netherlands ranks amongst the countries with the lowest number of abuse-of-dominance interventions. This study compares the number of competition law cases concerning abuse of a dominant position in the Netherlands with other jurisdictions. It examines possible explanations for the lower number of interventions in the Netherlands.

First, this report seeks to explain why abuse interventions occurring in four other jurisdictions in 2005-2009 did not occur in the Netherlands. The higher number of interventions in Finland and Germany results mainly from differences in regulation and legislation. The difference with Denmark is mainly due to a difference in enforcement practice. This study explains why the intervention was less likely to occur in the Netherlands for a majority of interventions observed in four jurisdictions.

Second, this report examines macro-data and enforcement characteristics to explain the lower number of interventions. Differences in the tools and resources available to the five competition authorities and their deterrent effects do not explain the relatively low number of Dutch interventions. This report has been unable to conclude whether Dutch firms have violated the abuse-of-dominance provision to a lesser extent, as compared to other jurisdictions. The explanation that the Netherlands Competition Authority NMa chose to intervene in few abuse-of-dominance cases in the period studied, or resolved a relatively high number of cases informally, cannot be ruled out.