Short Reads

European Commission must reassess Lufthansa's request to waive merger commitments

European Commission must reassess Lufthansa's request to waive merger

European Commission must reassess Lufthansa's request to waive merger commitments

01.06.2018 NL law

On 16 May 2018, the General Court partially annulled the European Commission's rejection of Lufthansa's request to waive pricing commitments it had given when it acquired Swiss International Air Lines (Swiss) in 2005. The Court held that the Commission had failed to fulfil its obligation to carefully examine all the relevant facts.

In 2005, the Commission approved the acquisition of Swiss by Lufthansa, subject to conditions. The conditions included pricing commitments in relation to the Zurich-Stockholm and Zurich-Warsaw routes operated by Swiss. On these routes, Lufthansa committed to apply an equivalent fare reduction each time it reduced a published fare on a comparable route. The commitments also contained a review clause providing that under specific circumstances Lufthansa could request a waiver, modification or substitution of the commitments.

In 2013, the parties requested a waiver of the pricing commitments on three grounds: (i) the termination of a joint venture agreement entered into between Lufthansa and Scandinavian Airlines System in 1995, (ii) the Commission's policy change in the treatment of alliance partners in the context of the Commission's merger review and (iii) increased competition in the market. The Commission rejected the requested waiver in 2016 and Lufthansa appealed this decision before the General Court.

The Court reiterated that the Commission has a certain discretion in its merger review, especially with respect to economic assessments. According to the Court, this discretion also applies in the assessment of a waiver request that entails complex economic assessments.

At the same time, the Commission is obliged to carry out a careful examination of that request, to conduct investigation if necessary, to make appropriate enquiries and to base its conclusions on all the relevant information. The Court also ruled that if the parties have adduced sufficient evidence to support the request, it is then for the Commission to show how the evidence is insufficient or unreliable and, if necessary, carry out an investigation to verify, supplement or refute that evidence.

As regards the Zurich-Stockholm route, the Court ruled that the matters relied on in the decision could not justify the rejection of the requested waiver. The Court found, for example, that the Commission had failed to examine the impact of the termination of the joint venture on competition and had not adequately answered Lufthansa's argument that the Commission had changed its policy by no longer taking alliance partners into account in determining affected markets. The Commission had also failed to undertake a concrete analysis of contractual changes and relied on purely speculative matters in that regard.

In the absence of contractual changes relating to the Zurich-Warsaw route, the Court saw no reason to annul the Commission's decision in so far as it concerned that route.
 
The case clarifies the standard of review and the burden of proof in proceedings concerning assessments of a request for a waiver of commitments. It is also the third ruling in a short period in which the Court has annulled a merger decision due to faulty analyses or procedures. 

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

European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger
Dutch Appeal Court drastically reduces cartel fine Dutch construction company
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case
Belgian Supreme Court confirms illegality of dawn raids due to the lack of a warrant

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

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more