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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more