Short Reads

General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors

General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors

General Court annuls European Commission's merger blocking decision in UPS/TNT for procedural errors

04.04.2017 NL law

On 7 March 2017, the General Court ("GC") annulled the decision of the European Commission to block the proposed acquisition of TNT Express ("TNT") by United Parcel Service ("UPS"). The GC found that the Commission had infringed the right of defence of UPS by failing to communicate the final version of the econometric model used in the assessment.

UPS notified the Commission of its proposed acquisition of TNT in 2012. On 30 January 2013, the Commission decided the proposed acquisition was incompatible with the internal market and with the EEA agreement. The Commission decided not to grant approval for the proposed acquisition as it would lead to competitive concerns on the market for express small package delivery services in 15 Member States.

The Commission first estimated the degree of concentration on the market by using an econometric model based on variables recommended by UPS. However, in the later "prediction stage", the Commission used different variables.

UPS appealed the decision at the GC arguing that the Commission had infringed its right of defence. UPS argued that it could not effectively challenge the reliability of the econometric model used by the Commission in its decision, properly analyse the differences between the Commission’s results and its own results, or replicate the Commission's results.

The GC sided with UPS and emphasized that observing the right of the defence is a general principle of EU law which much be guaranteed in all proceedings. The GC noted that the right to a fair hearing "requires that the undertaking concerned must have been afforded the opportunity, during the administrative procedure, to make known its views on the truth and relevance of […] the documents used by the Commission to support its claim."

The GC ruled that the changes made to the final model could not be regarded as negligible. By failing to communicate the final model the Commission had infringed the right of defence of UPS. The GC concluded that UPS might have been better able to defend itself had the final version of the econometric model been at its disposal. Consequently, the GC annulled the decision.

The judgment confirms that parties should be given sufficient opportunity to comment and respond to analyses used by the Commission in merger cases. The parties are unable to refile the concentration as TNT has meanwhile been acquired by FedEx. However, the GC's ruling might form a basis for UPS to claim damages.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Samsung in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  2. Court of Justice rules on the Hearing Officer's competence to resolve confidentiality requests
  3. European Commission proposes a new Directive to empower national competition authorities to be more effective enforcers of EU competition law rules
  4. European Commission launches anonymous whistleblower tool
  5. District Court of Gelderland denies passing-on defense in antitrust litigation related to the GIS-cartel

Team

Related news

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring