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

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