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

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

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