Short Reads

Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case

Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case

Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case

01.12.2017 EU law

On 14 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal by British Airways (BA) and upheld the fine for its participation in an infringement in the air cargo sector. It ruled that the General Court (GC) had been correct in not granting a full annulment of the infringement decision, as BA had only sought a partial annulment before the GC.

In 2010, BA and several other carriers were fined for an infringement in the air cargo sector. On appeal before the GC, most addressees of the fining decision requested a full annulment. BA, however, only sought a partial annulment. On 16 December 2015, the GC annulled the decision in its entirety in relation to the carriers that had asked for full annulment because the grounds of the decision were inconsistent with the operative part [see our January 2016 Newsletter]. The GC had raised this issue of its own motion as it concerned a matter of public policy. BA, however, only obtained a partial annulment of the fining decision as it had only requested a partial annulment.

BA subsequently appealed the GC's judgment before the Court of Justice, arguing that the GC should have gone beyond BA's request for a partial annulment and should have ordered a full annulment instead. In particular, BA was of the opinion that the principle of non ultra petita (i.e. the principle that the European Courts cannot go beyond the form of order sought by the appellant) did not apply in this situation as the GC had found of its own motion the inconsistencies in the fining decision as matter of public policy. The Court of Justice, however, disagreed with BA. It stated that "it is the parties that take the initiative in pursuing the case and delimiting its subject matter, inter alia by identifying in the form of order sought the act, or part of the act, which they intend to submit to judicial review". The fact that the GC can raise a public policy argument of its own motion in its substantive examination of a decision does not mean that the GC can amend the scope of the dispute on the same basis.

This judgment is not the end of the Air Cargo case. In 2016, after the annulment of the original fining decision by the GC, the European Commission adopted a second decision against the carriers. New appeal proceedings against this second decision are currently pending before the GC.

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

  1. Court of Justice rules on the application of competition law to agricultural producer organisations
  2. National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision
  3. General Court partially annuls the Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

Team

Related news

05.06.2018 EU law
New EU rules to reduce marine pollution

Articles - Plastic pollution has become a key environmental concern. And it is not surprising why: according to a recent study, of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics that have been produced so far, 6.3 billion metric tons has become plastic waste. Of this plastic waste, 79% is accumulating either in landfill sites or in the oceans. Therefore, on 28 May 2018 the EU Commission issued a new draft Directive aimed at tackling marine litter by addressing single use plastic items and abandoned fishing gear.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger

Short Reads - On 31 May 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Ernst & Young (EY) did not illegally implement the acquisition of KPMG Denmark (KPMG DK) before obtaining antitrust clearance.  Following the announcement of the transaction, KPMG DK terminated a cooperation agreement. According to the Court, that act cannot be regarded as a violation of the stand-still obligation since it did not contribute to the change of control of the target undertaking.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case

Short Reads - On 9 May 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam declined to accept jurisdiction over Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken, in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB). In the same judgment, the Amsterdam District Court did accept jurisdiction over the alleged claim brought by MTB against Heineken N.V. (Heineken), for the reason that Heineken is based in Amsterdam. The case against Heineken will therefore continue to the next procedural phase, in which the parties will debate the merits of MTB’s alleged claim against Heineken.

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 – en cookieverklaring