[ad_1]
The ECJ appealed to the Court of Justice last January to inquire whether the dispute could be settled in Latvian courts and not in Latvian courts, since the dispute is being dealt with in the country where the defendants are Air Baltic and Riga. habitat However, there are exceptions to the regulation, for example where the dispute concerns the place where the damage occurred.
No specific answer instead of the dispute
The Lithuanian Court of Appeal asks the ESTJ to answer three questions concerning the location of the damage. The case of Air Baltic in Lithuania is related to the dispute.
Speaking of the country whose courts should be dealing with the dispute between flyLAL, Air Baltic and Riga airport, ESTT said that Lithuanian and Latvian courts could do so, according to the ESTT, if the The case turns out that the damage caused to flyLAL is due to the agreement between Air Baltic and Riga Airport against the competition, which depends on the circumstances of the injury suffered by flyLAL which, in principle, should not be evaluated by the Lithuanian Court of Appeal. discounts, in which case the place where the injurious event occurred is Latvia, and the dispute must be dealt with
"This should also be decided when it is established that Air Baltic has applied Abusive prices for some flights to and from Vilnius Airport to follow up on this agreement, "says ESTT.
However, if the use of predatory pricing by Air Baltic is considered a separate offense involving abuse of dominance, the dispute should be handled by the court of the country where this proceeding took place.
"If the events in the main proceedings were part of a common strategy, seeking to exclude flyLAL from flights to and from the Vilnius airport and all having contributed to the damage, the national court must identify, in the chain of events at issue in the main proceedings, a particularly relevant incident for the implementation of such a strategy "ESTT.
flyLAL damage suffered by Lie near
The Court of Appeal from Lithuania also asked whether financial losses (loss of income), as indicated by flyLAL, should be considered as a loss on the basis of which jurisdiction can be determined.
ESTT stated that because of Air Baltic and the allegedly reduced loss of anti-competitive activities of flyLAL at Riga airport can be considered a loss, where the place of origin can be judged by jurisdiction. "With regard to losses suffered by the airline (flyLAL), the most affected by the flights to and from the capitals of the Member State in which the the market is to be considered as the market of the 39 Member State where this company is likely to be part of the sales activity related to these flights, ie the Lithuanian market, "says the decision.
The Air Baltic branch in Lithuania, though it participated in predatory pricing, offering these prices on the market. According to ESTT, the Lithuanian Court of Appeal should determine this.
"It should, inter alia, consider whether the activities of this branch consisted in the supply and application of the alleged predatory price and whether such participation was sufficient in the alleged abusive conduct of the dominant position which means that it could be considered closely related to the dispute in the main ", – says ESTT.
The dispute arose 10-14 years ago
The dispute between flyLAL, Air Baltic Corporation and Riga Airport damage and damage. FlyLAL claims to award damages to allegedly illegal actions of Air Baltic and Riga Airport – a possible agreement on lower prices applied at Riga Airport. According to flyLAL, because of the use of predatory prices of Air Baltic at the Vilnius airport, she was driven out of the air market
The Vilnius Regional Court, after about seven years of litigation in January 2016, ruled that Air Baltic had to pay 16 121 million litas. damage from the euro to flyLAL. At the Riga airport, which was applying reductions to Air Baltic, the court relinquished its responsibility. FlyLAL 's claims at Riga airport and at Air Baltic were discussed behind closed doors and it is unclear why Riga Airport is not obliged to. compensate the damages suffered by the Lithuanian company.The court found that Air Baltic, which challenged the roads, was acting in unfair competition, losing ticket prices, operating below the operating costs and aiming at to exclude flyLAL from controversial roads. According to the court, the evidence gathered in the case confirms that the Latvian companies abused the dominant position in the geographic markets of Riga and Vilnius airports, while Air Baltic applied an anti-competitive strategy
. The Riga airport has provided discounts to the Air Baltic company for 2004-2008 to reach 43.4 million. Euro FlyLAL was of the opinion that Latvian companies must clear 57.87 million euros. damage to the euro
flyLAL commenced litigation in 2008 on the grounds that the Riga airport offered discriminatory discounts to a Latvian company. After the flyLAL claims, Latvian companies tried to challenge the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian courts and also denied that Lithuanian courts could seize badets of high-value companies. In autumn 2014, the Court of the European Union (EU) authorized the seizure of goods from the airport of Riga and Air Baltic in response to a request from the Supreme Court of Latvia (19659004 ).
In 2006, the Latvian Competition Council acknowledged that the reductions practiced by the Riga airport distorted the market and benefited two companies – Air Baltic and Ireland "Ryanair.
[ad_2]
Source link
