Short Reads

General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors

General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors

General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors

04.04.2017 NL law

On 7 March 2017, the General Court ("GC") annulled the decision of the European Commission to block the proposed acquisition of TNT Express ("TNT") by United Parcel Service ("UPS"). The GC found that the Commission had infringed the right of defence of UPS by failing to communicate the final version of the econometric model used in the assessment.

UPS notified the Commission of its proposed acquisition of TNT in 2012. On 30 January 2013, the Commission decided the proposed acquisition was incompatible with the internal market and with the EEA agreement. The Commission decided not to grant approval for the proposed acquisition as it would lead to competitive concerns on the market for express small package delivery services in 15 Member States.

The Commission first estimated the degree of concentration on the market by using an econometric model based on variables recommended by UPS. However, in the later "prediction stage", the Commission used different variables.

UPS appealed the decision at the GC arguing that the Commission had infringed its right of defence. UPS argued that it could not effectively challenge the reliability of the econometric model used by the Commission in its decision, properly analyse the differences between the Commission’s results and its own results, or replicate the Commission's results.

The GC sided with UPS and emphasized that observing the right of the defence is a general principle of EU law which much be guaranteed in all proceedings. The GC noted that the right to a fair hearing "requires that the undertaking concerned must have been afforded the opportunity, during the administrative procedure, to make known its views on the truth and relevance of […] the documents used by the Commission to support its claim."

The GC ruled that the changes made to the final model could not be regarded as negligible. By failing to communicate the final model the Commission had infringed the right of defence of UPS. The GC concluded that UPS might have been better able to defend itself had the final version of the econometric model been at its disposal. Consequently, the GC annulled the decision.

The judgment confirms that parties should be given sufficient opportunity to comment and respond to analyses used by the Commission in merger cases. The parties are unable to refile the concentration as TNT has meanwhile been acquired by FedEx. However, the GC's ruling might form a basis for UPS to claim damages.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Samsung in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  2. Court of Justice rules on the Hearing Officer's competence to resolve confidentiality requests
  3. European Commission proposes a new Directive to empower national competition authorities to be more effective enforcers of EU competition law rules
  4. European Commission launches anonymous whistleblower tool
  5. District Court of Gelderland denies passing-on defense in antitrust litigation related to the GIS-cartel

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more