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

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