Short Reads

General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

The General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisi

General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

02.07.2018 NL law

On 20 June 2018, the General Court rendered its judgment in two connected appeals submitted by České dráhy, the Czech Railways Operator, challenging two dawn raid decisions by the European Commission. Based on arguments concerning the scope of the investigation, the Court annulled in part the first dawn raid decision and fully upheld the second dawn raid decision.

The Commission investigated an alleged predatory pricing practice by České dráhy. In the course of this investigation, it issued a dawn raid decision the scope of which was defined as including, but not limited to, predatory pricing behaviour on the Prague - Ostrava route after 2011.

Considering the information available to the Commission at the time when the dawn raid decision was taken, the Court found that the Commission did not have the right to include references to more than predatory pricing in the scope of the dawn raid decision. The Court noted that, when suspecting predatory pricing practices, the Commission's investigation can of course have the suspicion that these practices are part of a possibly wider exclusionary strategy. However, unless the Commission possesses documents pointing towards such a wider strategy, extending the scope of the dawn raid is not justified.

During the first investigation, the Commission seized general documents concerning České dráhy's costs that led the Commission to suspect other anticompetitive practices and to issue a second dawn raid decision. České dráhy argued that these documents were unlawfully seized, as they did not directly concern pricing on the Prague - Ostrava route and were hence outside the scope of the first investigation. The General Court found that the Commission was within its rights to seize the documents, since, even if they were only indirectly linked to the suspected behaviour, the Commission was entitled to seize documents relevant for determining both the direct and the indirect costs on the concerned route.

These decisions give further guidance on the Commission's powers to investigate suspected anticompetitive behaviour via dawn raids.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General market studies are insufficient proof to establish dominance, two Dutch District Courts rule
  2. Excessive pricing findings set aside by UK court in prominent pharma ruling

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more