Short Reads

The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

07.02.2019 NL law

On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Even though there is a need for speed in merger control proceedings, companies should still be given sufficient opportunity to provide their views on the accuracy and relevance of all the factors on which the Commission intends to base its decision.

In 2013, the Commission concluded that the merger would have led to a significant impediment to effective competition in 15 Member States on the market for the international express delivery of small parcels. UPS subsequently withdrew its cash offer for TNT and, in 2016, TNT was acquired by FedEx, a competitor of UPS.

In 2017, the GC set aside the Commission's prohibition decision on the ground that the rights of defence of UPS had been infringed [see our April 2017 Newsletter]. Specifically, the econometric model relied on by the Commission differed materially from the one disclosed to the parties in the statement of objections. The GC held that this error was sufficient to annul the prohibition decision because, absent the error, there was at least a slight chance that the parties would have been better able to defend themselves. Notably, the GC did not find it necessary to consider whether the outcome of the Commission's review would have been different but for the procedural error.

The Court of Justice upheld the GC's judgment and confirmed that the rights of the defence require parties to be put in a position in which they can effectively make known their views on the accuracy and relevance of all the factors on which the Commission intends to base its decision. The Court of Justice emphasized that while econometric models are quantitative tools appropriate for the purpose of carrying out prospective merger control analysis, the methodological basis underpinning those models must be as objective as possible.

The judgment, which is consistent with EU courts' greater appetite to set aside Commission decisions on procedural (as opposed to substantive) grounds, is likely to only have a modest effect on the Commission's conduct in merger reviews. This is because in trying to strike a balance between administrative expediency and the rights of defence, the judgment only requires that "material" changes be notified to the merging parties. According to AG Kokott's opinion, undertakings concerned should not expect, in terms of content, more than a brief and to-the-point description of the econometric model used by the Commission.

Finally, it remains to be seen how the judgment will affect the ongoing damages claims brought against the Commission by UPS and Irish aviation company ASL, which had agreed to buy TNT Airways subject to the UPS/TNT transaction. Both parties are seeking compensation for losses incurred in connection with the prohibition decision.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

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

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

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