Background of Investment Environment in Netherlands
Over the past several decades, the Netherlands has experienced steady growth in foreign direct investment (“FDI”). A considerable portion of FDI inflows is concentrated in key sectors such as technology, logistics, manufacturing, financial services, and renewable energy. The country’s open economy and favorable tax regime have further incentivized multinational corporations to establish their regional headquarters or holding companies in the Netherlands.
In a short summary, several factors contribute enormously to the attractiveness of the Netherlands as an FDI destination:
Therefore, the Netherlands remains a compelling destination for foreign direct investment due to the aforementioned variable factors. Despite facing soaring competition from other EU countries and global economic challenges, this country’s proactive approach to attracting investment and fostering innovation continues to position it as one of the most attractive investment hubs on the European Continent.
The Introduction of FDI Regime in Netherlands
As introduced above, the Netherlands has a highly open and globalized economy that consistently ranks among the top FDI destinations worldwide. However, there has been significant debate in the Netherlands in recent years about the risks associated with essential parts of the business landscape being strategically dependent on third country actors. This debate intensified during the Covid-19 pandemic which caused disruptions in certain markets due to unwelcome acquisitions and investment activities and posed potential economic and security threats posed by foreign countries. Echoing to such debate, the Dutch government enacted a mandatory investment screening regime to more stringently regulate the foreign investments, the Foreign Direct Investment Act (in Dutch: Wet Veiligheidstoets investeringen, fusies en overnames), with effect from 1 June 2023, complementing the then-current existing sector-specific investment screening for the Dutch energy and telecom sectors. A separate screening agency, the Bureau Toetsing Investeringen (“BTI”), part of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, has been established to enable thorough screening under each of these regimes.
The Foreign Direct Investment Act aims to introduce a more comprehensive review system to further protect national interests. Nevertheless, the sector-specific investment review system still remains effective and should prevail when any inconsistence between these two regimes occurs and transactions that are subject to sector-specific investment screening are excluded from the Foreign Direct Investment’s scope.. Unlike the foreign direct investment review mechanism in other European Union member states, the Dutch Foreign Direct Investment Act adopts a “nationality-neutral” approach, meaning it applies not only to acquisitions by non-EU investors but also to the relevant transactions by EU investors and even Dutch investors themselves.
The Sector-specific Investment Screening Mechanism
The Netherlands has the mandatory screening regime for acquisitions in the energy and telecoms sector:
Energy sector: The Electricity Act 1998 and the Gas Act 2000 prescribes that the notification to the BTI is necessary to file by either the acquirer or the target company at least four months before the acquisition of control over companies managing electricity production installations exceeding 250MW and liquified natural gas installations in the Netherlands, or the acquisition of the assets themselves. The BTI will then assess whether the acquisition gives rise to public safety or supply certainty risks, in which case it could be approved subject to remedies or prohibited altogether. Failure to notify will cause a transaction to be voidable.
Telecoms sector: A more elaborated investment screening regime applying to telecom businesses in the Netherlands came into force in October 2020 through amendments to the Dutch Telecommunications Act, which now requires BTI notification before a foreign investor can acquire “predominant control” over a Dutch “telecommunication party”, which leads to “relevant influence” on the Dutch telecommunication sector. The concept of “predominant control” includes the acquisition of at least 30% of voting rights. The definition of a “telecommunication party” includes companies offering electronic communications networks or services, hosting services, internet exchange points, trust services or data center services in the Netherlands – but excluding data centers that are designed solely or predominantly for a company’s own use. Several thresholds of “relevant influence” are exampled in implementing legislation, e.g. (non-exhaustive list), an internet access service or telephone service to more than 100,000 end users, or an internet exchange point to which more than 300 autonomous systems are connected.
This notification regime is not suspensory, but parties would have to face the risk of having to reduce or reverse their controlling interest if there were to be a prohibition decision or conditional approval. Upon receiving a notification, which needs to be submitted at least eight weeks before the envisaged implementation of a transaction, the BTI will have to decide within eight weeks whether the transaction will be prohibited. It can, however, decide to extend this period for up to six months to conduct a more in-depth investigation and ‘stop the clock’ in case of formal questions.
In addition, the BTI also can prohibit a transaction if this were to lead to a “threat to the public interest” which could more specifically be the case if an acquirer:
In case of failure to notify, the BTI may still order notification of the transaction and also impose a fine of up to €900,000.
The New Dutch FDI Review Regime – Scope
In May 2022, the Dutch parliament approved legislation for a cross-sectoral investment screening regime, known as the Foreign Direct Investment Act. The Foreign Direct Investment Act applies to the following investment activities:
In addition to the aforementioned types of transactions subject to the scrutiny of the Foreign Direct Investment Act, the act further lists 3 types of target companies established in the Netherlands or are actively operates in the Netherlands that are to be assessed by the BTI:
The assessment is made as to whether the transaction under scrutiny poses a risk to national security. National security refers to security interests that are essential to the democratic legal order, security or other important interests of the Dutch state or social stability. The Foreign Direct Investment Act explicitly notes the following interests:
To assess the potential risk that an investment may pose to national security, particular attention by BTI is given to the following factors:
The New Dutch FDI Review Regime – Screening Mechanism
Pursuant to the Foreign Direct Investment Act, any acquisition within the scope of its application must be declared to the investment review office, BTI. Both the target company and the acquirer are burdened with the obligation to make the declaration, and, however, it will often be the acquirer that takes charge of the process with the target’s cooperation, unless the target is bound by a non-disclosure agreement, the target of the undertaking will have to undertake this duty. Declaration is free of charge and follows a prescribed notification form that requires information regarding the proposed transaction, the companies involved and their ownership structure (including any state interest), as well as the acquirer’s national security track record (e.g., whether the acquirer is subject to sanctions or has been implicated in crimes), and a list of acquisitions in the past five years. Starting on upon its receipt of the declaration, the minister of the BTI has 8 weeks to determine whether a substantive review is necessary (“Phase 1”). If so determined by the minister, an additional 8-week period will be required for the subsequent substantive review process (“Phase 2”).
Each of Phase 1 and Phase 2 periods can be extended up to 6 months but the total months can be extended during Phase 1 and Phase 2 are capped by such 6-month period, which means, any extension within the 6-month period of Phase 1 will be deducted from the extension period in Phase 2. However, should the acquisition activity fall under the scope of EU Regulation 2019/452, the deadline can be extended for an additional 3 months.
In principle, a substantive review is only required when the minister believes that the acquisition may pose a threat to the national security, and if so believed, they have the authority to decide on setting certain conditions to restrict such acquisitions. These conditions may range from requiring the acquirer and the target company to implement security and integrity policies to excluding certain assets or subsidiaries of the target company from the scope of the transaction. If the minister finds that setting conditions is insufficient to eliminate the national security risks, they can decide to entirely forbid such acquisition activities from occurring.
What particularly deserves to be noticed by the parties to the transaction is that the Foreign Direct Investment Act introduced a standstill obligation, referring that investors must not complete the acquisition before the minister renders the official decision: (i) whether a substantive review is to be followed or (ii) whether the transaction has been (conditionally) approved.
Moreover, the act further carries retrospective effect on eligible transactions that were completed after September 8, 2020. In other words, the minister, in their discretion, can elect to review eligible transactions completed between September 8, 2020, and June 1, 2023, and may request the parties involved in the transactions to submit a declaration for further assessment. However, the retrospective mechanism of the Foreign Direct Investment Act is subject to three limitations:
-First, the parties to the transactions are not obligated to voluntarily submit a declaration. The parties only need to submit when minister request a declaration based on reasonable grounds to suspect that the completed acquisition may pose threats to national security.
-Second, the declaration ordered by the minister can only be issued within 8 months upon the enactment of the Foreign Direct Investment Act.
-Third, the retrospective effect of the act does not apply to acquisitions by operators of the business campus and acquisitions of high-end sensitive technologies designated by the government’s order.
The New Dutch FDI Review Regime – Penalties
Failure to fulfill the required declaration obligation may lead to various consequences, including being mandated to file the declaration of the relevant acquisition or being penalized of administrative or criminal fines. The maximum fine amount can reach up to € 900,000 or 10% of the target or acquirer’s worldwide turnover. And yet, transactions that continue to proceed regardless of the minister’s decision of prohibition will be deemed invalid eventually.
Conclusion
The enactment of the Foreign Direct Investment Act by the Dutch parliament in 2022 indeed stirred a small amount of concern by the investors and businesses over the expected regulatory impact and deterrent effect on investments relating to potential future growth areas, and the Dutch government estimates that this regime will roughly be applicable to up to 1,460 companies currently active in Netherlands. However, the investment environment in the Netherlands, as of today, is still highly favorable and appealing to investors. With a stable and open economy, strategic location, and business-friendly policies, the country attracted both domestic and foreign businesses. Its advanced infrastructure, skilled workforce, and tax incentives further contributed to its attractiveness. The Netherlands embraced innovation and technology, making it a hub for startups and tech companies. Overall, the Netherlands offered a reliable and supportive environment for investment and business growth.
在过去的几十年里，荷兰的外商直接投资（“FDI”）保持了稳定的增长。大部分的FDI流入集中在关键领域，如技术、物流、制造、金融服务和可再生能源。该国的开放经济和有利的税收制度进一步激励了跨国公司在荷兰设立区域总部或控股公司。简而言之，有如下几个因素极大地提高了荷兰作为FDI目的地的吸引力：
战略位置：荷兰由于靠近主要市场、交通基础设施发达、拥有多个港口和机场，俨然是欧洲的重要门户。这一地理优势使其成为分销和物流业务的理想地点。
稳定的商业环境：荷兰拥有稳定的政治氛围、透明的法律制度和有利于投资者的政策，这增强了外国投资者的信心，同时也降低了在该国投资的风险。
成熟的劳动力：荷兰具有大量受过高等教育的劳动力，技能水平高，尤其是在工程、技术和金融等领域。这为寻求扩大业务的外国公司提供了合格的人才储备。
创新与研究：荷兰非常重视研发，拥有世界一流的大学和研究机构。其对创新的关注使其对前沿行业，如制药业，非常具有吸引力。
税收优惠：荷兰提供了一些税收优惠，包括广泛的双重征税协定网络，以鼓励外国投资和促进跨境交易。
荷兰外商直接投资制度的介绍
如上所述，荷兰具有高度开放和全球化的经济，长期以来一直是全球范围内外商直接投资（FDI）的热门目的地之一。然而，近年来，荷兰国内关于企业领域的重要部分受到第三国的一些战略和商业活动所带来的风险，引发了激烈的争议。而且该争议在新冠疫情期间愈演愈烈，因为一些不受欢迎的收购和投资活动导致某些市场中断，同时引发外国对荷兰经济和安全的潜在威胁。为了应对这一辩论，荷兰政府于2023年6月1日开始实施一项强制性的投资审查制度，即外商直接投资法（荷兰语：Wet Veiligheidstoets investeringen, fusies en overnames），旨在更严格地监管外国投资，同时补充了当时已存在的针对荷兰能源和电信部门的行业特定投资审查制度。为了执行这一制度，政府还成立了专门的审查机构，即投资审查局（“BTI”），隶属于经济事务和气候政策部，负责进行这些制度下的深入审查。
外商直接投资法的目标在于引入更为全面的审查制度，以进一步保护国家利益。然而，行业特定的投资审查制度仍然具有效力，而在这两种制度之间出现不一致情况时，应优先适用行业特定制度。受行业特定投资审查制度监管的交易不适用于外商直接投资法。荷兰外商直接投资法与其他欧盟成员国不同，采用了“国籍中立”的方式，意味着它不仅适用于非欧盟投资者的收购，也适用于欧盟投资者甚至荷兰本国投资者的相关交易。
对于能源和电信部门的收购，存在着强制性的审查制度。在收购控制权之前，收购方或目标公司必须向BTI提前通报。BTI将评估收购是否会对公共安全或供应保障造成风险，并决定是否批准或禁止。未能提前通报将导致交易被撤销。
能源部门，根据1998年电力法和2000年天然气法的规定，收购者或目标公司在收购控制荷兰境内超过250MW的电力生产设施和液化天然气设施的公司，或在收购这些资产本身之前，至少需要提前四个月向BTI提交通知。BTI将评估收购是否引发公共安全或供应保障的风险，如果确实存在风险，它可以在施加附加条件的情况下批准或完全禁止该交易。未能提前通知将导致交易被撤销。
电信部门，通过对荷兰电信法的修订，更为详细的适用于荷兰电信业务的投资审查制度于2020年10月生效。该法要求外国投资者在获得电信业务公司的“主导控制权”从而对荷兰的“电信方”产生“相关影响”之前向BTI进行通报。在此情况下，具体而言“主导控制权”是指收购至少30%的表决权。而“电信方”的定义包括在荷兰提供电子通信网络或服务、托管服务、互联网交换点、信任服务或数据中心服务的公司，但不包括仅或主要为公司自身使用而设计的数据中心。在实施法规中，举例说明了几个“相关影响”的门槛，例如（非详尽列表）向超过10万个终端用户提供互联网接入服务或电话服务，或向连接了超过300个自治系统的互联网交换点提供服务。
这种通知制度并非暂停性质，但各方若遭遇禁止决定或有条件批准，则必须面临减少或撤销控股权益的风险。在接到通知后，BTI需在预计交易实施前的至少八周内决定是否禁止交易，这一期限是自通知提交之日起的八周。但是，BTI有权选择将此期限延长至六个月，以进行更深入的调查，并在存在正式问题的情况下“停止计时”。此外，若收购者导致“威胁公共利益”的情况，BTI也可禁止交易，更具体地说，如果收购者：
– 是一个国家、实体或个人，已知或有理由怀疑其有意影响电信方，以实施滥用或故意破坏；
– 与上述情况中列出的国家、实体或个人有密切关联、受其影响，或者有理由怀疑存在这种关联或影响；
– 会显著增加电信部门受到相关影响所带来的不良后果的风险；
– 是一个无法确定实际持有人或收购者身份的某方；
– 或者未能充分配合针对上述情况的调查。
如果未能提前通知，BTI仍可要求通知交易，同时也有权对其处以高达90万欧元的罚款。
根据《外国直接投资法》的筛选机制：
在其适用范围内的任何收购都必须向投资审查办公室BTI申报。目标公司和收购者均有申报的义务，通常情况下，收购者在与目标公司的合作下负责此流程，除非目标公司受到保密协议的限制，否则目标公司将需要承担此义务。申报是免费的，并遵循规定的通知表格，要求提供有关拟议交易、涉及公司及其所有权结构（包括任何国家利益）的信息，以及收购者的国家安全背景（例如，收购者是否受到制裁或涉嫌犯罪），以及过去五年的收购清单。自接到申报之日起，BTI部长有8周的时间决定是否需要进行实质性审查（“第一阶段”）。若部长做出此决定，还需要额外的8周时间进行后续的实质性审查过程（“第二阶段”）。
第一阶段和第二阶段的每个期限都可延长至6个月，但在这两个阶段内总延长不得超过6个月，这意味着，在第一阶段的6个月延长期限内，任何延期将从第二阶段的延长期限中扣除。然而，如果收购活动属于欧盟法规2019/452的范围，截止日期可延长3个月。
原则上，仅当部长认为收购可能对国家安全构成威胁时，才需要进行实质性审查。若部长如此认为，他们则有权决定设定一定条件以限制该收购。这些条件可能包括要求收购者和目标公司实施安全和完整性政策，或将目标公司的某些资产或子公司排除在交易范围之外。如果部长认为设定的条件不足以消除国家安全风险，他们可以决定完全禁止此类收购活动。交易各方应特别注意，《外国直接投资法》引入了一项停顿义务，即在部长作出正式决定前，投资者不得完成收购：（i）是否需要进行实质性审查；或（ii）交易是否已（有条件地）获批准。此外，该法还对2020年9月8日之后完成的符合条件交易具有追溯效力。换句话说，部长可以自行决定审查2020年9月8日至2023年6月1日之间完成的符合条件交易，并可要求交易各方提交申报以进行进一步评估。然而，《外国直接投资法》的追溯机制受到三个限制：
– 首先，交易各方无义务自愿提交申报。仅当部长有合理理由怀疑已完成的收购可能对国家安全构成威胁时，各方才需要提交申报。
– 其次，部长下令的申报只能在《外国直接投资法》颁布后的8个月内发出。
– 第三，该法的追溯效力不适用于商业园区经营者的收购和政府命令指定的高端敏感技术的收购。
荷兰新的外国直接投资审查制度 – 处罚
未能履行规定的申报义务可能导致各种后果，其中包括被要求提交有关收购的申报，或是遭受行政或刑事罚款。最高罚款金额可达90万欧元，或相当于目标公司或收购者全球营业额的10%。此外，不顾部长的禁止决定而继续进行的交易最终将被视为无效。
结论
荷兰议会在2022年颁布《外国直接投资法》确实引起了投资者和企业对预期监管影响以及对涉及潜在未来增长领域的投资产生的一些担忧。荷兰政府估计，这一制度大约将适用于目前在荷兰活跃的约1460家公司。然而，截至今日，荷兰的投资环境仍然非常有利且吸引投资者。凭借其稳定而开放的经济、优越的战略地理位置以及支持商业的政策，该国吸引了国内外企业的兴趣。先进的基础设施、高素质的劳动力和税收优惠更进一步提升了其吸引力。荷兰积极拥抱创新和技术，使其成为初创企业和科技公司的聚集地。总的来说，荷兰为投资和业务增长提供了可靠而支持性的环境。