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

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

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