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

04.04.2017 EU 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

16.02.2018 EU law
Who is a consumer? The dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation

Short Reads - On 25 January 2018, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") rendered a preliminary ruling in a case between Austrian citizen Maximilian Schrems and online social network Facebook. The ruling is important for two reasons. First, the ECJ approved a dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation. Secondly, the ECJ clarified that the special consumer forum can only be invoked by the specific consumer who is party to the contractual relationship with the professional trader.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Short Reads - On 13 December 2017, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a judgment clarifying the qualification 'in scope' and 'out of scope' of documents seized by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) during dawn raids at the applicants' (Distripaints NV and Novelta NV) premises. The dawn raids were launched after a complaint by SA Durieu Coatings, which accused both distributors of colluding with its competitor Akzo Nobel.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Short Reads - On 19 January 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) published its judgment concerning an appeal brought by shoe manufacturer ASICS against a fining decision. The FCJ ruled that ASICS had infringed competition law by prohibiting its retailers from participating in price comparison websites. The judgment confirms the strict approach of German courts relating to vertical online sales restrictions.  

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Participation d’entreprises liées aux marchés publics: qui assume la responsabilité ?

Articles - L’avocat général Campos Sanchez-Bordona a récemment déposé des conclusions intéressante dans le cadre de l’affaire nr. C-531/A6 dont la Cour de justice a été saisie. Selon l’avocat général, des soumissionnaires qui sont liés mais qui présentent chacun une offre séparée pour un marché public déterminé n’ont pas à informer le pouvoir adjudicateur des liens existant entre eux. Il ressort en outre des conclusions que le pouvoir adjudicateur n’est pas légalement tenu de vérifier de manière active la participation d’entreprises liées à un marché public.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement

Short Reads - On 23 January 2018, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Italian Council of State. The request concerned an agreement between Roche and Novartis to make public statements concerning the alleged lack of safety and efficacy of one of Roche's products which competed with a product licensed to Novartis (the Agreement). The Court of Justice found that such an agreement can, under specific circumstances, constitute a restriction of competition "by object".

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy