The Bottom Line
- High Bar for Urgent Measures: A court will not order a company to freeze millions in assets based on state aid allegations if the supposed illegal aid was granted over a year ago. The measure is not seen as urgent or capable of reversing past market distortions.
- No Parallel Document Hunts: You cannot use a separate summary proceeding to demand documents from a competitor if you are already seeking the same information in an ongoing appeal. Courts favor consolidating such requests within the primary legal case.
- “Fishing Expeditions” Frowned Upon: Broad, non-specific demands for commercially sensitive information from a direct competitor will likely be rejected, especially when the competitive relationship poses a clear risk of misuse.
The Details
A group of taxi operators has failed in a preliminary court bid to challenge the outcome of a major public tender in Rotterdam. The case revolved around a €320 million public tender for specialized transport services, which was awarded to RMC Rotterdam. The losing bidders alleged that RMC’s parent company had unfairly benefited from illegal state aid when it acquired its shares from the publicly-owned transport company RET for a price they claimed was far below market value. They argued this “sweetheart deal” allowed RMC to submit an artificially low bid. To fight back, they asked the court for two things: an order for RMC to place €3 million in a blocked account to neutralize the alleged aid, and full access to documents concerning the share sale. The Rotterdam District Court rejected both claims.
The court first dismantled the demand for documents. It found the request was a mix of asking for information that had already been provided, requesting documents that didn’t exist, or was simply too broad to be enforceable—what the court effectively labeled a “fishing expedition.” Crucially, the court noted that the plaintiffs had already requested the same set of documents in a separate, ongoing appeal related to the public tender award. The judge ruled that there was “insufficient interest” in launching a parallel legal action for the same evidence, reinforcing the principle that such matters should be handled within the main case. This decision underscores the court’s reluctance to allow parties to open multiple legal fronts for the same discovery objective, especially when it involves sensitive commercial data of a direct competitor.
The request to freeze €3 million was rejected primarily on the grounds of a lack of urgency. The court reasoned that the alleged illegal state aid occurred when the share deal was completed in December 2022, more than a year before this hearing. Ordering an asset freeze now could not prevent or undo any market distortion that might have happened in the past. The plaintiffs’ own argument—that the benefit had already been used to win the tender—undermined their claim of an immediate, ongoing threat. The court concluded that a provisional measure cannot remedy a past event and noted that the alleged benefit was a cost saving, not a direct cash injection, making the demand to deposit liquid funds illogical and disproportionate.
Source
Source: Rechtbank Rotterdam
