JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF MERGER CONTROL: LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FOR UKRAINE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2011.100.1.Abstract
The article considers judicial review of the European Commission’s decisions
in the field of merger control as well as relevant procedure applicable to the Antimonopoly
Committee of Ukraine under Ukrainian law. The article further identifies
the scope of the standard of proof imposed on competition authorities in merger
cases as well as the scope of judicial powers in merger control in general.
Стаття присвячена проблемам судового нагляду за рішеннями Європей-
ської Комісії в сфері контролю за концентрацією та досліджує застосування
європейського досвіду у відповідній практиці судового перегляду рішень орга-
нів Антимонопольного Комітету в Україні.
References
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union, [2010] OJ C 83, Article 263 (ex Article 230 TEU).
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations
between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation), OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, P. 1–22.
Case T-221/95, Endemol Entertainment Holding BV v Commission [1999] ECR II-1299
5 CMLR 611, para 106; Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 France and Others v
Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, paras 223, 224.
Case T-342/99, Airtours plc v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-2585, [2002] 5 CMLR 317.
Case T-310/01, Schneider Electric SA v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-4071, [2003] 4 CMLR
Case T-5/02 Tetra Laval v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-4381, [2002] 5 CMLR 1182.
Case T-464/04 Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala) v. Commission,
ECR II-2289.
Where the Commission’s decision is annulled, the concentration in question must be considered
again, based on the new market conditions.
Treaty On European Union and Treaty Establishing the European Community, consolidated
versions, 29 December 2006, O.J. (C321) E/1 (2006), Article 230.
See C. BELLAMY, Antitrust and the Courts, Roundtable, in 1998 Annual Proceedings of
the Fordham Corporate Law Institute (New York, Juris Publishing, 1998), at P. 389.
Case C-12/03P Commission v. Tetra Laval BV [2005] ECR I-987, para 39.
Case T-310/01 Schneider Electric SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-4071; Case T-5/02 Tetra
Laval BV v Commission [2002] ECR –II 4381; Case T-342/99 Airtours plc v Commission
ECR II-2585; Case T-156/98 RJB Mining v Commission [2001] ECR II-337. [check]
Case T-342/99 Airtours plc v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, para 62, 294.
Joint cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 France v Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, para 223, 224.
See Opinion of the Advocate-General Tizzano in Case C-12/03P, Commission v Tetra Laval,
para 86, 89.
Joined cases C 68/94 & 30/95, France v. Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, para 228.
Case T-342/99, Airtours plc v. Commission, para 294.
Case T-310/01, Schneider Electric SA v. Commission, paras 179, 209.
Case T-114-02, BaByliss v. Commission [2003], ECR II-1279.
See L. PRETE, A. NUCARA, Standard of Proof and Scope of Judicial Review in EC
Merger Cases, Id., at p. 695.
Case T-5/02 Tetra Laval v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-4381, [2002] 5 CMLR 1182.
Case T-5/02 Tetra Laval v. Commission, at para 155.
See L. PRETE, A. NUCARA, STANDARD of Proof and Scope of Judicial Review in EC
Merger Cases, at p. 695.
See T. REEVS, N. DODOO, Standards of Proof and Standards of Judicial Review in European
Commission Merger Law, 29 Fordham Int`l Law Journal, 2006, at p. 159-160; M.
CLOUGH, The Role of Judicial Review in Merger Control, 24 NWJILB, 2004, at p.732-
; Y. BOTTEMAN, Mergers, Standard of Proof and Expert Economic Evidence, 2 J.
Competition L. & Econ, 2006, at p.80-83; L. PRETE, A. NUCARA, Standard of Proof and
Scope of Judicial Review in EC Merger Cases: Everything Clear After Tetra Laval, 26
ECLR, 2005, at p. 692.
Case C-12/03 P, Commission v Tetra Laval BV [2005], ECR I-987.
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in the case C-12/03 P, Commission v Tetra Laval BV
, ECR I-987, para 73-74.
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, at paras 87-89.
The Constitution of Ukraine, Article 42; the Law on Protection of Economic Competition,
Article 55.
O. MELNYCHENKO notes conflicting decisions taken by district general court and district
commercial court in one and the same case. See O. MELNYCHENKO, The Court of Special
Jurisdiction, 1 Competition, 2004, at p. 45.
Under Article 12 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, commercial courts hear
cases involving claims on behalf of the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine
in all issues under their respective competence; the Law on Protection of Economic Competition,
Article 60.
Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine establishes the right of referral to commercial
courts in economic entities and private (individual) entrepreneurs. Commercial Procedural
Code of Ukraine dated 06 November 1991, Article 1 (1)(Відомості Верховної Ради (ВВР),
, N 6, item 56).
See O. MELNYCHENKO, Id., at p. 47. At the same time, it should be noted that the Law
on Protection of Economic Competition establish jurisdiction of commercial courts over
private actions for damages as well as appeals of the Committee decisions (Article 55; Article
. The question arises, therefore, about the supremacy of the Commercial Procedural
Code provisions over more specific Law on Protection of Economic Competition in relation
to the jurisdiction of commercial courts to hear competition cases brought by the individuals
rather than economic enterprises.
Code on Administrative Judiciary establishes jurisdiction of administrative courts over cases
involving the state governmental agencies or state (natural) monopolies where relevant regulatory
powers have been delegated to such monopolies by respective governmental agencies.
See Code on Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine dated 06 July 2005, Article 2 (1)
(Відомості Верховної Ради (ВВР), 2005, N 35-36, N 37, item 446).
See V. MOYSYK, O. MELNYCHENKO, Protection of economic competition: Ukraine
reaches new standard, 3 Competition, 2005,at p. 60-61. On proposals for Competition Court
see also J.Jurick, Problems of Kegislatyive Reglamentation of Powersa of the Antimonopoly
Committee; Competition Policy and legislationm at p. 6.
Direct appeals to the Supreme Court of Ukraine speed up the appeal process as long as there
remains only one instance to review the court decision on a final basis instead of existing
four.
The Constitutional Court ruled on unconstitutionality of provisions of the Law on Judicial
System establishing the Court of Cassation of Ukraine. In its decision the Court pointed out
«…construction of the system of courts of general jurisdiction shall comply with the stages
of judicial process and form of procedure. Based on existing [constitutional] provisions...
cassation proceedings can be performed by relevant courts outlined in Article 125 of the
Constitution of Ukraine». As a matter of fact, no reference to the Court of Cassation was
present in the constitutional provisions outlining the system of courts of general jurisdiction
of Ukraine (Article 125 of the Constitution). The Court took narrow interpretation of Article
and concluded that cassation procedure can be performed within any existing type
of court explicitly referred to in the Constitution. See Judgment of the Constitutional Court
of Ukraine in the case No. 1-38/2003 dated 11 December 2003 (Офіційний вісник Ук-
раїни dated 02.01.2004 - 2003., № 51, volume 1, p. 280, Article 2705), item 4.2, para 4.
See V. Moysyk, O. Melnychenko, at p. 60.
See the Law on Protection of Economic Competition (BBP, 2001, 12, item 64), Article 59,
item 1.
Id., item 2.
See Case 8/26, Judgment of the High Commercial Court of Ukraine dated 27 June 2001
(Постанови ВСУ та ВСГУ, 2003, No. 1). In this case, challenge by the Court of the definition
of «monopoly high prices» was based on both factual assessment made by the Committee
and legal analysis, which resulted in the Committee decision being annulled on the
grounds of both errors of fact and law.
See Case 8/26, Judgment of the High Commercial Court of Ukraine dated 27 June 2001
(Постанови ВСУ та ВСГУ, 2003, No. 1); Case 20/225, Judgment of the High Commercial
Court of Ukraine dated 26 August 2003 (Адвокат, 2004, No.3); Judgment of the High Commercial
Court of Ukraine dated 18 March 2001 (Постанови ВСУ та ВСГУ, 2003, No. 2).
See Case No. 20/707-10/254, Judgment of the High Commercial Court of Ukraine dated 28
April 2005 (Постанови ВСУ та ВСГУ, 2005, No. 2). See also O. MELNYCHENKO, Is the
Court to Define Relevant Market?, 4 Competition, 2005, at p. 56.
Case No. 20/707-10/254, Judgement of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 6 September
(Інформаційний Лист ВГСУ № 01-8/2450 dated 13 December 2005), para 10.
The Law on the Antimonopoly Commitee of Ukraine, Article 7, para 11 (BBP, 1993, No.50,
item 473).
Case No. 20/707-10/254, Judgement of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 6 September
, para 10-11.
Under the cited provisions powers of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine to define relevant
market and dominant position of an undertaking on such market shall not be performed
by any other state bodies (the Law on the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine,
Article 7, para 20 (BBP 1993, No.50, item 472)).
Case No. 39/225, Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 13 September 2005 (Ін-
формаційний Лист ВГСУ № 01-8/2450 dated 13 December 2005).
Resolution of the Antimonopoly Committee N 49-р On Approval of the Methodology for
Establishment of the Dominant Position dated 05 March 2002 (Офіційний вісник України
dated 19.04.2002 - 2002 р., № 14, p. 396, item 778).
The Law on Protection of Economic Competition, Article 41, 1-3 (BBP, 2001, No.12, item
.
Case No. 39/225, Judgment of the Commercial Court of the City of Kiev dated 9 November
(Інформаційний Лист ВГСУ № 01-8/2450 dated 13 December 2005).
The words «legal qualification of acts» referred to abuse of dominant position established
by the Antimonopoly Committee in its contested decision. Case No. 39/225, Judgment of
the High Commercial Court of Ukraine dated 26 April 2005 (Інформаційний Лист ВГСУ
№ 01-8/2450 dated 13 December 2005), para 38.
The Antimonopoly Committee contested different application by the High Commercial
Court of Articles 1 and 12 of the Law on Protection of Economic Competition and the
Methodology for Establishment of the Dominant Position in another case involving annulment
of the Committee decision (Case No. 38/308, Judgment of the High Commercial Court
of Ukraine dated 3 February 2003). The Committee argued the Case 38/308 to be identical
in nature with the contested Case No. 39/225.
Case No. 39/225, Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 13 September 2005, para
