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
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

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
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

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

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