英國法院駁回針對萬事達的反壟斷集團訴訟

[導讀：2017年7月21日，Competition Appeal Tribunal訊，英國法院駁回了針對萬事達（Mastercard）壟斷提起的集團訴訟。本案源於歐盟委員會（EU Commission）在2007年針對萬事達作出的決定。歐盟委員會認為，1992年至2007年間萬事達在歐盟境內設置了一個最低價格控制，通過多邊交叉費的方式，要求使用銀行卡的商戶必須向收單銀行支付該最低價格以換取繳納證。歐盟委員會認為該行為違反了《歐盟運行條約》(TFEU)第101條。之後，萬事達向歐盟常設法院和上訴法院上訴，均被駁回。本案原告基於多邊交叉費在英國發起了反壟斷集團訴訟，但是法院認為該案的原告未能滿足英國反壟斷集團訴訟的要求，因此駁回了原告的起訴。（本文源自Competition Appeal Tribunal。導讀系本公眾號原創，轉載請註明文字出自本公眾號。）]

The judgment of the Tribunal on an application by the proposed class representative (「Merricks」) for opt-out collective proceedings order under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 (「CA」) (the 「CPO Application」).

The proposed collective proceedings would combine follow-on claims for damages arising from a decision of the European Commission of 19 December 2007 (the 「EC Decision」) addressed to the proposed defendants (「Mastercard」). In summary, the EC Decision found that, from 22 May 1992 to 19 December 2007, Mastercard had infringed what is now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by in effect setting a minimum price which merchants had to pay to their acquiring bank for accepting payment cards in the EEA, by means of the intra-EEA fallback multilateral interchange fee (the 「EEA MIF」) for Mastercard branded consumer credit and charge cards and for Mastercard or Maestro branded debit cards. Mastercard』s appeal against the EC Decision was dismissed by the General Court on 24 May 2012 and a further appeal was dismissed by the Court of Justice on 11 September 2014.

The present case alleges damages that are largely the result of Mastercard』s setting of the multilateral interchange fee which applied as a fallback between banks in the UK (the 「UK MIF」). The UK MIF was not at issue in the EC Decision, but it is alleged in the present case that the UK MIF was directly influenced by the EEA MIF. It is further alleged that consumers suffered loss as a result of paying prices to businesses that accepted MasterCard cards which prices were higher than they would otherwise have been had Mastercard not committed the infringement of Article 101 established by the EC Decision. The class on behalf of whom Mr. Merricks seeks to bring the claim is defined as comprising individuals who between 22 May 1992 and 21 June 2008 purchased goods and/or services from businesses selling in the UK that accepted Mastercard cards, at a time at which those individuals were both (1) resident in the UK for a continuous period of at least three months, and (2) aged 16 years or over.

Mastercard resisted the CPO Application on various grounds, including distinct grounds relating to the arrangement entered into by Merricks to fund the proceedings (the 「Funding Agreement」).

The Tribunal considered whether the CPO Application should be granted on the basis of the criteria in section 47B CA and the TribunalRules and in particular the two statutory conditions which must be satisfied for the Tribunal to make a collective proceedings order, namely:

(i) the claims must be eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings (section 47B(5)(b) CA and rules 77 and 79); and

(ii) the person bringing the proceedings is a person who the Tribunal could authorise to act as the class representative (section 47B(5)(a) CA and rules 77 and 78).

For the reasons given in the Judgment, the Tribunal held that:

(a) the claims should not be certified under rule 79 of the Tribunal Rules as eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings;

(b) if, contrary to (a), the Tribunal had certified the claims, then on condition that the Funding Agreement was amended as proposed, the Tribunal would haveauthorisedMrMerricks under rule 78 of the Tribunal Rules to act as the class representative.

Accordingly, the CPO Application was dismissed.

我們致力於提供反壟斷法最新資訊，包括法規速遞、執法機關動態、行政執法、民事訴訟、中外反壟斷法交流、學術研究等。提供案例解析、理論介紹、律師實務操作指南，以及原創反壟斷法評論和文章，部分內容為中英文雙語。歡迎您的關注。