Short Reads

Germany did not err in extraditing an Italian citizen to the US for a competition law infringement

Germany did not err in extraditing an Italian citizen to the US for a

Germany did not err in extraditing an Italian citizen to the US for a competition law infringement

01.05.2018 NL law

On 10 April 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Germany did not breach EU law by extraditing an Italian citizen to the United States for a competition law infringement in a situation where Germany's constitutional law does not permit extradition of its own nationals. The case highlights that extradition to the US for competition law infringements can be a real possibility for EU citizens.

In 2010, an arrest warrant was issued against Romano Pisciotti, an Italian citizen, by the District Court for the Southern District of Florida for his alleged involvement in the Marine Hose cartel. In 2013, Mr Pisciotti was arrested by the German authorities when his flight from Nigeria to Italy made a stopover at Frankfurt am Main airport. In 2014, Germany extradited Mr Pisciotti to the US where he served a prison sentence of approximately two years. He was the first European ever extradited to the US on cartel charges.

In 2014, Mr Pisciotti brought an action before the Landgericht Berlin for a declaration that Germany was civilly liable for having granted his extradition. According to Mr Pisciotti, Germany had breached EU law because Germany's constitutional law would not have allowed the extradition to the US of a German citizen who was in Mr Pisciotti's exact situation.

The Court of Justice ruled that Germany's unequal treatment between its nationals and the nationals of other Member States amounted to a restriction of the EU freedom of movement. Such restriction can only be justified if it is based on objective considerations and in so far as those objectives cannot be attained by less restrictive measures. The Court held that the objective of preventing the risk of impunity for persons who have committed an offence is an objective which can theoretically justify a free movement restriction. The Court then considered if Germany could have adopted a less restrictive course of action by surrendering him to Italy rather than to the US. The facts showed, however, that although the Italian authorities were informed of the US request for extradition, they did not issue an European arrest warrant requesting Mr Pisciotti's surrender to Italy. Germany was therefore allowed to extradite Mr Pisciotti to the US.

While the judgment highlights the possibility of successful EU-US extradition requests, it also makes clear that a request for surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant by the EU citizen’s Member State of nationality has priority over a request for extradition issued by the US. The practical consequences of this prioritization appear to be limited, however, as an European arrest warrant can only be issued if the issuing Member State has jurisdiction, pursuant to national law, to prosecute the person for the offences to which the US extradition request relates. That will not always be the case if the cartel was implemented in the US.

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

  1. European Court of Justice provides guidance on assessing discriminatory pricing
  2. European Commission imposes record fine on Altice for premature implementation of PT Portugal acquisition
  3. European Commission proposes draft Regulation on online platforms and search engines
  4. District Court of Amsterdam rules on requests for pre-procedural hearings
  5. Rotterdam District Court quashes cartel fines imposed by the ACM on cold storage operators

Team

Related news

05.04.2022 NL law
Game on for gatekeepers: Digital Markets Act finalised

Short Reads - Now that political agreement has been reached on the final text, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) will enter into force soon. The DMA’s ex ante rules and obligations will apply next to the ad hoc EU and national competition rules. Time for big digital companies to take stock of the potential implications of these additional rules on their day-to-day business operations. See our infographic for a concise overview of the DMA.

Read more

04.04.2022 EU law
ACM jumps on gun-jumping bandwagon

Short Reads - Companies involved in multi-step acquisitions should beware of potential gun-jumping risks. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has fined a trade association for failing to notify the acquisition of four pharmacies involving a consecutive partial resale. Unlike the European Commission’s gun-jumping fine for partial implementation of a concentration through a ‘warehousing’ two-step acquisition (see our July 2019 newsletter; appeal pending), the ACM’s fine relates to faulty turnover calculations due to an unmaterialized two-step transaction.

Read more

04.04.2022 EU law
The ECN+ Directive implemented in Belgium and introduction of merger filing fees

Short Reads - On 7 March 2022, the Act implementing the ECN+ Directive into Belgian law was published in the Belgian Official Gazette. The Act entered into force on 17 March 2022. Some of the key amendments include (i) the introduction of filing fees for the notification of a concentration, (ii) new fines and penalty payments (including clarifications on the leniency programme), (iii) new dawn raid powers and (iv) the introduction of a regulatory framework for mutual assistance and cooperation within the European Competition Network.

Read more