umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Articles

General Court annulled Commission's EUR 790 million fining decision in Air Cargo case

General Court annulled Commission's EUR 790 million fining decision in Air Cargo case

General Court annulled Commission's EUR 790 million fining decision in Air Cargo case

05.01.2016 NL law

On 16 December 2015, the General Court ("GC") annulled the Commission's fining decision holding 21 carriers liable for an infringement on the Air Cargo market. The GC found that the grounds of the decision were inconsistent with the operative part and the grounds moreover contained substantial internal inconsistencies. 

The inconsistencies were liable to infringe the defence rights of the carriers and prevented the GC from exercising its power of review. As a result, the decision in which fines amounted to approximately EUR 790 million was overturned.

On 9 November 2010, the Commission adopted a decision in which the grounds refer to one single and continuous infringement of EU competition rules by all 21 addressees. The operative part of the decision, however, describes four infringements relating to different periods, routes and varying groups of carriers. The division of the operative part in four infringements was based on the changed scope of the Commission's competence over the years: at the start of the alleged infringement the Commission was only competent to apply European competition law to routes between airports in the EEA. In later years,  the scope of its powers had increased. All but one carrier appealed the Commission's decision.

The GC considered that, in principle, as regards the scope and nature of the infringement, what is important is the operative part and not the statement of reasons. Therefore, the operative part of a decision must be particularly clear and precise to safeguard the rights of defence as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, an unambiguous and clear wording is important for national courts to draw the necessary inferences as regards civil claims for damages. 

According to the GC, the operative part was not sufficiently clear because no possible interpretation could be consistent with the grounds of the decision. Specifically, it was not clear from the decision why certain carriers were omitted from certain articles in the operative part. In addition, the grounds of the decision themselves suffered from significant internal inconsistencies.

The GC decided that as a result of these inconsistencies, the carriers were not in a position to understand the nature and scope of the alleged infringement. Therefore, their rights of defence were infringed and the GC was precluded from exercising its power of review. As a consequence, the GC annulled the decision in its entirety in relation to the carriers that had asked for full annulment. 

The Commission may appeal the judgment before the Court of Justice, choose to adopt a new fining decision, or do both.

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

Team

Related news

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
Game over? Gaming companies fined for geo-blocking

Short Reads - The Commission’s cross-border sales crusade seems far from over. The EUR 7.8 million fine imposed on distribution platform owner Valve and five PC video games publishers for geo-blocking practices is the most recent notch in the Commission’s belt. Food producer Mondelĕz may be next on the Commission’s hit list: a formal investigation into possible cross-border trade restrictions was opened recently.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepts jurisdiction in competition law damages case concerning Greek beer market

Short Reads - On 16 February 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) set aside a judgment of the Amsterdam District Court (the District Court) in which the District Court declined jurisdiction over the alleged claims against Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken N.V. (Heineken), in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB).

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
ECJ clarifies limits of antitrust limitation periods

Short Reads - Companies confronted with antitrust investigations and fines may find safeguard behind the rules governing limitation periods (often termed ‘statutes of limitation’). However, two preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that those rules are not necessarily set in stone. According to the ECJ, national time limits relating to the imposition of antitrust fines may require deactivation if these limits result in a ‘systemic risk’ that antitrust infringements may go unpunished.

Read more

29.01.2021 NL law
Publicatie en inwerkingtreding Uitvoeringswet Screeningsverordening buitenlandse directe investeringen

Short Reads - Op 4 december 2020 is een uitvoeringswet in werking getreden die bepaalde elementen uit de Verordening screening van buitenlandse directe investeringen in de Unie regelt en zorgt dat Nederland voldoet aan de verplichtingen uit die verordening. Ook is er een conceptwetsvoorstel toetsing economie en nationale veiligheid verschenen. 

Read more