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

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring