Short Reads

Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case

Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case

Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case

01.12.2017 NL law

On 14 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal by British Airways (BA) and upheld the fine for its participation in an infringement in the air cargo sector. It ruled that the General Court (GC) had been correct in not granting a full annulment of the infringement decision, as BA had only sought a partial annulment before the GC.

In 2010, BA and several other carriers were fined for an infringement in the air cargo sector. On appeal before the GC, most addressees of the fining decision requested a full annulment. BA, however, only sought a partial annulment. On 16 December 2015, the GC annulled the decision in its entirety in relation to the carriers that had asked for full annulment because the grounds of the decision were inconsistent with the operative part [see our January 2016 Newsletter]. The GC had raised this issue of its own motion as it concerned a matter of public policy. BA, however, only obtained a partial annulment of the fining decision as it had only requested a partial annulment.

BA subsequently appealed the GC's judgment before the Court of Justice, arguing that the GC should have gone beyond BA's request for a partial annulment and should have ordered a full annulment instead. In particular, BA was of the opinion that the principle of non ultra petita (i.e. the principle that the European Courts cannot go beyond the form of order sought by the appellant) did not apply in this situation as the GC had found of its own motion the inconsistencies in the fining decision as matter of public policy. The Court of Justice, however, disagreed with BA. It stated that "it is the parties that take the initiative in pursuing the case and delimiting its subject matter, inter alia by identifying in the form of order sought the act, or part of the act, which they intend to submit to judicial review". The fact that the GC can raise a public policy argument of its own motion in its substantive examination of a decision does not mean that the GC can amend the scope of the dispute on the same basis.

This judgment is not the end of the Air Cargo case. In 2016, after the annulment of the original fining decision by the GC, the European Commission adopted a second decision against the carriers. New appeal proceedings against this second decision are currently pending before the GC.

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

  1. Court of Justice rules on the application of competition law to agricultural producer organisations
  2. National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision
  3. General Court partially annuls the Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

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