Brussels, 22/01/2015 (Agence Europe) - In a ruling (case T-355/13) delivered on Wednesday 21 January, the General Court of the EU ruled that the European Commission (EC) has broad discretion when accepting or rejecting a complaint in the area of competition law put to it in cases which have already been dealt with by a national competition authority, no matter how that authority ruled.
In 2008, easyJet, a British air carrier, lodged complaints with the Netherlands competition authority with regard to passenger and security service charges imposed by Amsterdam-Schiphol airport. In its decisions, the Netherlands competition authority rejected those complaints, relying on the Netherlands law governing aviation and resorting to its priority policy, which allows it to give different degrees of priority to the individual cases with which it deals.
In January 2011, easyJet lodged a complaint with the Commission. It submitted that the charges set by Schiphol were discriminatory and excessive and amounted to an abuse of a dominant position in the internal market. It referred to the complaints lodged with the Netherlands competition authority and maintained that that authority had not taken any final decision on the merits of easyJet's complaint under competition law. The Commission rejected the complaint on the basis, inter alia, that a national competition authority had already dealt with it.
easyJet appealed to the General Court, which first of all stated that its powers of judicial review of application of competition rules are very restricted and the Commission has broad discretion in this area. It then ruled that the Commission may reject a complaint which has previously been rejected by a competition authority of a member state on priority grounds, as what is important is not the outcome of the review of the complaint by that competition authority, but the fact that the complaint has been reviewed by that authority. The Commission checked the investigation carried out by the national authority and concluded, correctly, the Court said, that the investigation had been conducted in line with the various provisions of the national law and also in line with the rules of EU competition law. (JK)