Articles

Court of Justice clarified the concept of a concerted practice for unilateral announcements

Court of Justice clarified the concept of a concerted practice for unilateral announcements

02.02.2016 NL law

On 21 January 2016, the Court of Justice interpreted in its preliminary ruling in Eturas what constitutes a concerted practice in the context of a unilateral announcement in an online booking system. In its answer to a reference from the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the Court of Justice clarified under which conditions the existence of a concerted practice may be presumed and rebutted.

The Lithuanian Competition Council had fined several travel agencies for capping the discounts that they applied to online bookings. The agencies used the travel booking system E-TURAS, developed by the company Eturas, to offer tours to their customers. In August 2012, the administrator of this system sent a notice to the agents informing them that they should apply a maximum discount of 3 per cent to their bookings. In addition, a technical restriction was introduced by Eturas to cap the discounts that could be entered in the booking system at 3 per cent. According to the Competition Council, this meant that Eturas and the agents participated in a concerted practice.

The travel agents appealed, stating that they could not be held liable for the unilateral behaviour of Eturas. Some of the agents argued that they had not read the message, not restricted their discounts or not even sold the relevant product. The Supreme Administrative Court decided to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice, essentially asking whether the unilateral dispatch of the system notice is sufficient evidence to presume that the travel agents knew or should have known about the restriction of discounts, on the basis of which they were liable for a concerted practice.

The Court of Justice firstly considered that although the assessment of evidence is strictly speaking a matter for national law, it would be contrary to the presumption of innocence to infer the awareness of the travel agents on the sole basis that the message was dispatched to them. In the absence of awareness, participation in the concerted practice cannot be inferred from just the technical restriction that was introduced by E-TURAS. Nevertheless, if there are also other objective and consistent indicia present, national courts are not precluded from applying a rebuttable presumption of awareness. Furthermore, if the travel agents were aware or ought to be aware of the message, their participation in the concerted practice may be presumed.

The travel agents can rebut this presumption by reporting the restriction to the administrative authorities, or by publicly distancing themselves from the message. In this case, where it was impossible to identify all recipients of the message, the agent was not required to send a declaration to all the addressees. Instead, it would suffice to send 'a clear and express objection' to the administrator of E-TURAS. [See also our newsletter article on Toshiba below, from which it follows that the concept of public distancing should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis]. Interestingly, the Court of Justice added that these options are not exhaustive. A rebuttal by other means is also possible, for example, by adducing evidence that a discount exceeding the cap has been systematically applied.

This case appears to demonstrate a tendency towards a more nuanced approach in the assessment of concerted practices by unilateral announcements. A few months ago, the Court ruled in Total that publicly distancing itself is not the only means to rebut the presumption of a concerted practice or agreement [see our October 2015 newsletter]. Following the current judgment, the Commission issued a statement in which it indicated that it will review the implications of the ruling for the standard of proof in cartel cases where communication took place via online database systems.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice confirmed independence of EU and national leniency programmes
  2. Court of Justice reduced fine imposed on Galp Energía España and acknowledged excessive duration of General Court proceedings
  3. Court of Justice dismissed Toshiba's appeal in the power transformers cartel case
  4. Belgium's "excess profit" tax scheme qualified as illegal state aid
  5. German Competition Authority fined ASICS for restricting Internet sales of its distributors

Team

Related news

02.10.2017 EU law
Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 6 September 2017, the European Court of Justice rendered its landmark judgment in the Intel case. The outcome of this judgment was eagerly awaited, as it had the potential to revolutionize how EU competition law assesses the business practices of undertakings with a dominant position. The Court has clearly moved away from a form-based analysis, towards a more effects-based approach.

Read more

13.10.2017 BE law
Stibbe is strategic partner of IOE's guide on 'Doing Business in Belgium'

Inside Stibbe - Stibbe is proud to be partner of the 2017 Doing Business in Belgium Guide, published by the Institute of Export (IOE), a professional UK membership body that represents and supports the interests of those in imports, exports, and international trade. The IOE partners with the British Chamber of Commerce and the Department for International Trade at the British Embassy in Belgium.

Read more

02.10.2017 EU law
Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"

Short Reads - On 7 September 2017, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court on the interpretation of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). It confirmed that a change in the form of control from sole to joint control of an existing undertaking is considered a concentration under the EUMR only when the joint venture resulting from this transaction performs on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity in the relevant market and therefore qualifies as a full-function joint venture (FFJV).

Read more

04.10.2017 EU law
Stibbe attends IBA’s annual conference in Sydney

Conference - The International Bar Association (IBA) organises its Annual Conference from 8-13 October. This year’s edition takes place in Sydney, Australia’s leading global city. A team from Stibbe’s offices worldwide attends this prestigious event for international lawyers.

Read more

02.10.2017 EU law
Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel

Short Reads - On 14 September 2017, the European Court of Justice dismissed the appeals brought by LG Electronics Inc. (LG) and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Philips) against the General Court's (GC) judgment in the cathode ray tubes (CRT) cartel [see our October 2015 Newsletter]. The Court of Justice confirmed that the relevant "value of sales" in the EEA includes sales of finished products incorporating the cartelised products in the EEA, even if those cartelised products were first sold to entities outside the EEA by means of intragroup sales.

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