Keywords: case updates, easyJet, Akzo Nobel

CASE UPDATES 2015

General Court

easyJet Airline v Commission

Judgment of 21 January 2015

Key points arising

  • If the Commission declines to continue with the examination of a complaint, it has an obligation to state reasons sufficiently to allow the Court to review whether the contested decision is based on materially incorrect facts, or is vitiated by an error of law, manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers. Link to 2014 cases on "bringing matters before the Commission".
  • The Commission may reject a complaint on the grounds that a national competition authority has previously rejected the same complaint. Link to 2014 cases on "decision of the Commission".
  • It is irrelevant which branch of a member state's competition authority considered a matter in relation to the Commission's consideration of a national competition authority's decision.

General Court

Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

Judgment of 28 January 2015

Key points arising

  • The hearing officer's statement of reasons for a decision may be sufficient for the Commission to adopt its own decision. Link to 2014 cases on "statement of reasons".
  • In the absence of provisions explicitly ordering or prohibiting publication, the principle is that EU institutions should publish acts which they adopt.
  • The criteria for determining professional secrecy.
  • Information may not be disclosed if to do so would establish more easily civil liability.
  • An undertaking that infringed competition law does not in principle merit non-disclosure of its information.
  • The Commission has discretion to publish information submitted to it voluntarily in the context of a leniency application.
  • The Commission is not prohibited from publishing all information contained in relation to a leniency application but must exercise self-restraint in its discretion to publish. Link to 2014 cases on "decision of the Commission".
  • The Commission has discretion in relation to publication and can change its practices. A company having submitted information to the Commission does not have a legitimate expectation that the Commission will not change its practice. Link to 2014 cases on "decision of the Commission".

Originally published 18 June 2015

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.