UPS就并购TNT交易遭反垄断否决一案,向欧盟执法机构索赔17亿欧元

来源:大成反垄断团队 作者:秩名 人气: 发布时间:2018-02-27
摘要:[ 导读 :美国速递公司UPS就欧盟反垄断执法机构欧盟委员会在五年前否决其收购荷兰速递公司TNT一案提出索赔,要求欧盟委员会赔偿17.42亿欧元。欧盟委员会在2013年否决了这项52亿欧元的收购案,称UPS没有进行足够的让步以消除交易可能对消费者造成的损害。UPS


[导读:美国速递公司UPS就欧盟反垄断执法机构欧盟委员会在五年前否决其收购荷兰速递公司TNT一案提出索赔,要求欧盟委员会赔偿17.42亿欧元。欧盟委员会在2013年否决了这项52亿欧元的收购案,称UPS没有进行足够的让步以消除交易可能对消费者造成的损害。UPS认为欧盟委员会的否决决定严重违背了法治原则,给UPS造成了巨大损失。欧盟普通法院认为欧盟委员会在其分析中使用了不同于以往的经济模型,侵犯了UPS的辩护权。欧盟委员会已经就普通法院的判决提出上诉。2015年,欧盟委员会无条件批准了UPS的竞争对手FedEx收购TNT一案。(本文源自Reuters。导读系本公众号原创,转载请注明文字出自本公众号。)]

 

United Parcel Service Inc (UPS.N), the world’s largest package delivery company, is seeking 1.742 billion euros in damages from EU antitrust regulators after they blocked its bid to buy Dutch peer TNT five years ago.

The move was expected after an EU court agreed with UPS in March 2017 that the European Commission had been wrong to prevent the deal.

The Commission’s 2013 decision “is tainted with serious breaches of rules of law”, UPS said in a filing with the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe’s second-highest.

“The applicant claims these breaches in turn caused the applicant’s loss because had they not taken place, UPS would have acquired TNT,” the European Union’s official journal said on Monday in summarizing the complaint.

The Commission will defend itself in court, a Commission spokesman said.

Merger vetoes are rare. Of 6,833 potential mergers notified to the Commission since 1990, only 27 have been rejected.

The European Commission rejected the proposed 5.2 billion euro deal in 2013, saying UPS had not offered sufficient concessions to allay concerns that the deal would hurt consumers. UPS challenged this decision.

The General Court of the European Union, the EU’s second highest court, found that the Commission had infringed UPS’s rights of defense by relying on a different econometric model in its analysis than that used in previous exchanges of views and arguments.

The Commission has appealed against that court ruling.

U.S. rival FedEx (FDX.N) acquired TNT in 2015, winning unconditional EU regulatory approval.

声明:凡资讯来源注明为其他媒体来源的信息,均为转载自其他媒体,并不代表本网站赞同其观点,也不代表本网站对其真实性负责。您若对该文章内容有任何疑问或质疑,请立即与中国公平竞争网(www.zggpjz.com)联系,本网站将迅速给您回应并做处理。邮箱:zggpjz@163.com

评论:
 
责任编辑:admin
首页 | 新闻 | 法治 | 经济 | 维权 | 评论 | 舆情 | 地方 | 信用 | 学术

网站简介  版权声明  精英加盟  业务范围  广告服务

驻京地址:北京市经济技术开发区科创十四街99号 投稿邮箱:zggpiz@163.com

公平竞争网法律顾问:湖南揽胜律师事务所 刘银龙  电话:13873142836     潘 晨  电话:15116465128

   备案号 湘ICP备17014051号          湘公网安备 43011102000910号       -

               

Copyright © 2017-2020 公平竞争网 版权所有     

   

  • 竞争法访谈

    /video/qiyefangtan/20190107/4847.html

    北京知识产权法院:浏览器过滤广