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

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