Articles

General Court largely confirmed Commission's freight forwarding cartel decision

General Court largely confirmed Commission's freight forwarding cartel decision

General Court largely confirmed Commission's freight forwarding cartel decision

01.03.2016 NL law

On 29 February 2016, the General Court ("GC") dismissed most of the appeal grounds brought by 14 international groups of air freight forwarders and largely upheld the fines for their participation in several price fixing cartels. Only as regards one of the companies involved, UTi Worldwide, the GC decided to reduce the fine from EUR 3.07 million to EUR 2.97 million.

In 2012, the Commission imposed fines of EUR 169 million on the freight forwarders for breaching Article 101 TFEU by participating in one or more of four separate price fixing agreements. The Commission found that the freight forwarders coordinated pricing of international air freight forwarding services by fixing four different surcharges and pricing mechanisms. For instance, the freight forwarders agreed to introduce a common surcharge for administrative costs relating to US custom regulations, and conspired to align the implementation date and level of "peak season surcharges".

On appeal before the GC, the freight forwarders brought forward a large number of substantive and procedural arguments against the Commission's decision, including alleged errors of fact and law in relation to the definition of the relevant market, the duration of the infringement and the calculation of the fines. The GC rejected the majority of the appeal grounds. In particular, the GC found that the agreements on the surcharges and pricing mechanisms affected freight forwarding services as a "package of services" on the trade lanes affected, and the Commission was entitled to base its fine calculations on the total value thereof.

The GC only recalculated the fine imposed on freight forwarder UTi Worldwide. UTi Worldwide was held liable purely for the behaviour of its subsidiaries UTi Nederland and UTI Worldwide (UK). In its decision, the Commission rounded down the infringement periods imputed to the subsidiaries, but failed to do so for UTi Worldwide. The GC confirmed the principles laid down in Tomkins and Total [see our October 2015 newsletter] and ruled that the liability of a parent company cannot exceed that of its subsidiary when its liability is purely derivative of that of its subsidiary, and no other factor individually distinguishes the conduct for which the parent company is held liable. Consequently, the GC recalculated the fine initially imposed on UTi Worldwide and reduced it from EUR 3.07 million to EUR 2.97 million.

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

1. CBb ruled that the ACM wrongfully blocked merger between baking companies
2. European Commission qualified Dutch and Belgian tax regimes for seaports as state aid

Team

Related news

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more