The Court was asked as to the enforcement of government approved airline tariffs which were being evaded by travel agents who bought air tickets between two airports both outside Germany with the passenger boarding the plane during its stopover at a German airport. It was also said that their conduct constituted unfair competition because the prices of the airline tickets they sold undercut the approved tariffs applied by their competitors. The Bundesgerichtshof referred questions to the Court raising the compatibility of the agreement on tariffs not only under Article 85 but also under Article 86. It recognised that the tariff agreements at issue in the proceedings might have a serious anti-competitive effect: they may even have the effect of completely eliminating price competition on the routes to which they relate.
Held: The principles established in Asjes continued to apply to domestic air transport and air transport between the EEC and third countries since those sectors were still not covered by implementing regulations made under Article 87. The Court drew a distinction between these flights and intra-Community flights because the Council and Commission had by this time enacted implementing measures for the latter.
Citations:
R-66/86, [1989] EUECJ R-66/86
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commercial, Transport
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215681