Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities. (Competition) [2002] EUECJ T-342/99 (6 June 2002)

Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities. (Competition) [2002] EUECJ T-342/99 (6 June 2002)

The Court found that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in defining the relevant product market and failed to provide convincing evidence that the merger would create a collective dominant position significantly impeding competition. The Commission's reasoning regarding market definition, substitutability, and collective dominance was not adequately substantiated, and the decision was vitiated by errors of law and assessment.

Citation
[2002] EUECJ T-342/99
Parties
Applicant: Airtours plc; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Merger Decision / Final Judgment
Outcome
decision annulled
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Collective Dominance, Market Definition, Regulation No 4064/89, Judicial Review
Competition Law European Union Law Merger Control Collective Dominance Market Definition Regulation No 4064/89 Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airtours plc

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Merger Decision / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission made manifest errors in defining the relevant product market
  2. 2 Whether the Commission applied an incorrect definition of collective dominance
  3. 3 Whether the Commission proved that the merger would create a collective dominant position significantly impeding competition

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in defining the relevant product market and failed to provide convincing evidence that the merger would create a collective dominant position significantly impeding competition. The Commission's reasoning regarding market definition, substitutability, and collective dominance was not adequately substantiated, and the decision was vitiated by errors of law and assessment.

Court Disposition

decision annulled

Orders

  • The Commission's decision is annulled.
  • The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.