Ryanair has failed to get High Court orders seeking the return of documents seized from its Dublin office and extensively used by the Italian competition authority to reach a provisional view the airline had engaged in anticompetitive conduct in that country.
Ryanair claimed it could face a fine of up to 10 per cent of its global turnover, which it estimates at €1.4 billion, if such conduct is proven.
It said a decision against it could have severe commercial consequences, potentially requiring it to unwind an operating model long in place and potentially to later reinstate it should an appeal thereafter succeed.
The Italian investigation arose out of a complaint that Ryanair, through its online ticket sales system, precludes travel agencies from purchasing tickets via its website, where the lowest fares are available, and directs them instead to a global distribution system. This affects competition and amounts to an abuse of its dominant market position, it is claimed.
READ MORE
Ryanair denies the claims.
Following a search of Ryanair’s Dublin Airport facilities on March 8th, 2024, by officials from Ireland’s Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC), assisted by counterparts in Italy’s Autorità Garante Della Concorrenza e Del Mercato (AGCM), 222 documents were seized and brought back to Italy.
Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings plc claimed the documents were not properly obtained and should be returned to the CCPC pending the hearing here of its full legal challenge to the seizure.
Mr Justice Max Barrett refused to grant the airline’s application, but said he would facilitate a speedy hearing of the substantive proceedings.
Following the Dublin office search, Ryanair launched various proceedings in Ireland and Italy and claimed the District Court warrant granted to search its offices was based on incomplete information. It failed in a High Court action, and in an appeal, seeking to sue the Italian authority here over the search.
It also launched proceedings seeking the return of the documents from Italy, confirmation that they would not be used in the Italian investigation, and an order, if necessary, that the matter be referred to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. The CCPC opposed the application and the matter was heard this month.
Last month, AGCM issued a “notice of investigative findings” in which it reached the provisional view that Ryanair has engaged in anticompetitive conduct in Italy. That notice relied extensively on the disputed documents. Its preliminary investigation phase is scheduled to finish this month with a final decision to issue by December 31st, 2025.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Barrett rejected Ryanair’s claim the matter was urgent in view of the provisional finding by AGCM. He said Ryanair’s failure to take timely steps over this in Italy militates strongly against the grant of mandatory relief by an Irish court.
“The High Court cannot be asked to fill a vacuum created by a party’s own inaction, still less to impose intrusive obligations on a statutory body that has no control over a foreign authority whose conduct is the true focus of complaint,” he said.
Ryanair’s proceedings against the CCPC amounted to a collateral attack on the AGCM investigation, he said.
Any grievance Ryanair may have with AGCM’s conduct must be pursued through the avenues available in Italy and these proceedings cannot be repurposed as a back-door means of obtaining relief that is, in substance, sought against an absent and unamenable foreign regulator, he said.
He was also satisfied that no decision on any question of EU law is necessary to enable him to determine his decision in this application. He therefore declined to make a reference to the CJEU.
