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

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

06.12.2017 EU law
EU Court of Justice: Suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms

Short Reads - Today the ECJ rendered its much anticipated judgment in a dispute between a supplier of luxury cosmetics (Coty) and one of its authorised resellers. The central question was whether Coty is allowed under the competition rules to forbid its resellers to sell Coty products over third party internet platforms with visible logos (like eBay or Amazon).

Read more

01.12.2017 EU law
General Court partially annuls the European Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

Short Reads - On 10 November 2017, the General Court (GC) partially annulled the European Commission's 2015 decision to fine UK-based broker ICAP close to EUR 15 million for "facilitating" various infringements relating to Yen interest rate derivatives (YIRDs). The GC's judgment provides a useful overview of the current state of EU case law on (i) "by object" infringements; (ii) the role of facilitators in cartel cases; (iii) "complex single and continuous infringements"; (iv) the presumption of innocence; and (v) the Commission's duty to state reasons when setting the level of a fine.

Read more

07.12.2017 BE law
Décision inédite de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne en matière de protection de l’environnement : menace de sanctions financières pour la Pologne.

Articles - Dans son ordonnance du 20 novembre 2017, la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne a ordonné, sous astreinte, à la Pologne de cesser immédiatement les opérations de gestion forestière active dans la forêt de Białowieża. Cette ordonnance sort de l’ordinaire parce qu’elle contient des mesures provisoires mais également parce qu’elle est assortie de sanctions financières. Ces deux aspects sont pourtant des gages de l’efficacité du contrôle de la Cour devant laquelle la procédure au fond. L’impact de cette ordonnance va donc bien au-delà du seul cas de la forêt de Białowieża en Pologne.  

Read more

01.12.2017 EU law
National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision

Short Reads - On 23 November 2017, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court regarding the legal consequences of an European Commission commitment decision. The Spanish court sought guidance as to whether an EU commitment decision concerning long-term exclusive supply agreements between Spain's leading oil and gas company Repsol and its service station tenants, prevented the Spanish court from declaring that the agreements infringed competition law. 

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