Short Reads

Court of Justice dismisses all appeals against cartel decision in the freight forwarding sector

Court of Justice dismisses all appeals against cartel decision in the

Court of Justice dismisses all appeals against cartel decision in the freight forwarding sector

01.03.2018 NL law

On 1 February 2018, the European Court of Justice dismissed the appeals by several freight forwarders for their participation in various infringements in the sector for international air freight forwarding services.

Freight forwarding services involve a number of services relating to international logistics, such as packaging, transportation, warehousing, handling and customs and fiscal formalities. In 2012, the European Commission fined several freight forwarders for collusion relating to four pricing mechanisms. These pricing mechanisms primarily related to various surcharges charged by freight forwarders to their customers (e.g. the 'Peak Season Surcharge'). In 2016, the General Court largely confirmed the Commission's fining decision, although it lowered the fine for one of the companies in the case [see our March 2016 Newsletter].

On appeal before the Court of Justice, the freight forwarders raised several arguments, all of which were rejected. A selection of these arguments are set out below:

  • Schenker Ltd and Deutsche Bahn AG argued that the Commission had exceeded its discretion by holding them liable for the anticompetitive conduct of their subsidiary (Bax Global UK), while the former parent company of Bax Global UK was not held liable. The Court of Justice ruled that 'the Commission has a discretion concerning the choice of legal entities on which it can impose a penalty for an infringement of EU competition law'. The Commission could not be criticised for not fining all former parent companies, as this would have lengthened the proceedings and added considerably to the work involved.

  • Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd argued that the Commission had erred in calculating the fine. According to Panalpina, the Commission should have taken the value of the surcharges (e.g. the 'Peak Season Surcharge') as a basis for calculating the fine and not the value of the sales on the broader market for international air freight forwarding services. The Court of Justice, however, ruled that the Commission's approach was correct, as the collusion relating to the various surcharge mechanisms was designed to 'to fix the final price of the freight forwarding services'.

  • Kühne + Nagel International AG ("K+N") argued that Regulation No 141, which exempted certain activities in the transport sector from the application of the European competition rules, also applied to the freight forwarding sector. The Court of Justice disagreed and ruled that 'the services provided by freight forwarders, whose activity consists in supplying, in one package, a number of services that are distinct from the transport operation in itself, is not excluded […] by Article 1 of Regulation No 141.' Accordingly, the infringements by K+N did not fall under the (now expired) exemption for fixing 'transport rates and conditions' under Regulation No 141.

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

  1. ACM publishes key priorities for 2018 and 2019

  2. ACM publishes position paper on market dominance by tech companies

Team

Related news

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

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

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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