The Irish High Court has ruled that Ryanair cannot pursue its lawsuit against the Italian competition and antitrust authority, Autorità Garante Della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), in Ireland. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing antitrust dispute involving the airline.
The case, which has attracted considerable attention, stems from a search of Ryanair’s Dublin headquarters by approximately 30 officers, including members from the AGCM, on March 8th. This action was part of an investigation initiated by the AGCM in September, following complaints from two Italian travel agency associations and a consumer association regarding Ryanair’s online ticket sales practices.
Allegations against Ryanair suggest that the airline’s online system prevents travel agencies from accessing tickets at the lowest fares directly through its website, instead directing them to a global distribution system. This practice, the complainants argue, stifles competition and constitutes an abuse of Ryanair’s dominant market position. Ryanair has consistently denied these allegations.
In response to the search, Ryanair launched legal proceedings in Ireland, challenging the validity of the search warrant obtained by the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) and seeking to quash it. The airline also sought declarations that the material seized during the search was tainted by illegality, inadmissible and should not have been removed from Ireland.
Read more: Ryanair Wins Legal Battle Over State Aid to Air France-KLM
Central to Ryanair’s argument was the claim that the judge who issued the warrant was not informed of two key Italian rulings that, according to Ryanair, supported its position that it was not abusing its dominant market position.
However, Justice Max Barrett, presiding over the case, determined that the Irish courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the case against the AGCM. This decision was based on the EU regulation known as Brussels Recast, which governs jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters but does not apply to revenue, customs, administrative matters, or the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority.
Following this ruling, the proceedings against the AGCM were dismissed for want of jurisdiction, while the case against the CCPC was adjourned to address preliminary issues, with a full hearing scheduled for July.
Martin Hayden SC, representing Ryanair, noted that his client has also initiated legal proceedings in Italy, which are unrelated to the search warrant issue.
Source: Breaking News
Featured News
Mexico Moves Forward with Reform to Eliminate Key Regulators, Including Competition Watchdog
Aug 23, 2024 by
CPI
DOJ Sues RealPage for Alleged Rent-Fixing Scheme Using AI Software
Aug 23, 2024 by
CPI
Advance Auto Parts to Offload Worldpac for $1.5 Billion
Aug 22, 2024 by
CPI
Bronfman Ups Ante to $6 Billion in Paramount Battle, Skydance Deal at Risk
Aug 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google and California Strike Historic Deal to Fund Newsrooms Amid Controversy
Aug 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – State Attorneys General
Aug 22, 2024 by
CPI
CPI Talks… …With Attorney General Phil Weiser
Aug 22, 2024 by
CPI
The Bipartisan Miracle of State Antitrust Enforcement
Aug 22, 2024 by
Gwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley
Recent Developments in State Antitrust Enforcement: Agriculture and Food Markets
Aug 22, 2024 by
Elizabeth R. Odette
State Attorneys General: Stewards of Consumer Health and Welfare
Aug 22, 2024 by
Brooke Howlett Lovrovich