Global Antitrust Hot Topics : EU, US and Global Perspectives - 2017

The 5th edition of the Global Antitrust Hot Topics half-day conference was organized by Concurrences Review in partnership with Baker Botts and CRA.

Keynote Speech

Maria Eugénia Martins de Nazaré Ribeiro

Maria Eugénia gave the introductory keynote, and focused on the standard of judicial review in competition cases set by the EU Courts. Maria Eugénia discussed first the line of case law leading to Galp. And second, she discussed the Intel case in the context of judicial review.

Although the appeal in Galp focused on the full jurisdictional powers of the General Court, (GC), the judgement is much more important in what concerns legality control. In Galp the Court of Justice recalled its line of case law (beginning with Tetra Laval) reinforcing a full and unrestricted review, supplemented by the unlimited jurisdiction in respect of the amount of the fine and thereby satisfying the principle of effective judicial protection for the purpose of Article 47 of the Charter. This line of jurisprudence begins with KME, Chalkor, Otis, Schindler, KONE, Telefónica, Cartes Bancaires.

The legality control has a very important scope. It extends to all the elements of the Commission’s decisions which are subject to an in-depth review by the GC in law and in fact in the light of the pleas raised by the applicants, and that cannot be restricted in areas given raise to complex economic assessments. The legality control implies, among other things, that the EU judicature not only has to establish whether the evidence put forward is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but must also determine whether that evidence contains all the relevant data that must be taken into consideration in appraising a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it. With these principles, the Court holds that it is incorrect for the GC to confine itself to reviewing whether there is a manifest error of assessment, to rely on the Commission’s margin of discretion, to avoid examining the Commission’s assessment of complex economic situations or to avoid exercising its powers of unlimited jurisdictions.

Photos © Emilie Gomez

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.