Introduction

In the High Court of Ireland case Ryanair DAC & Anor v Competition and Consumer Protection Commission & Anor ([2024] IEHC 307), Ryanair sought to challenge actions undertaken by the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)—Italy's national competition authority—and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) of Ireland. The core of Ryanair's litigation involved contesting a search warrant and the subsequent seizure of documents during an investigation by the AGCM into potential anti-competitive practices by Ryanair.

The key issue centered on whether the Irish courts had jurisdiction to hear Ryanair's claims against the AGCM and CCPC under the Recast Brussels Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). The High Court ultimately ruled that the Irish courts lacked jurisdiction, setting aside the service of the summons and dismissing the proceedings against the AGCM.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on May 21, 2024, affirming that the Irish courts do not possess jurisdiction over Ryanair's proceedings against the AGCM and CCPC. The ruling was primarily based on the application of Article 1(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, which excludes certain matters from its scope, particularly those involving public authorities acting in the exercise of state powers ("acta iure imperii").

The court determined that the AGCM, as an Italian public administrative authority with enforcement powers in antitrust matters, was acting within its public law capacities during the investigation and seizure of documents. Consequently, the proceedings sought by Ryanair in Irish courts fell outside the jurisdictional purview of the Recast Brussels Regulation, necessitating the dismissal of the case against the AGCM for lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to elucidate the application of the Recast Brussels Regulation concerning jurisdictional exclusions for public authorities:

• Case C-645/11 Sapir and Ors: Clarified that actions involving public authorities exercising their public powers fall outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation.
• Case C-292/05 Lechouritou and Ors: Established that state actions related to sovereign immunity are excluded from civil and commercial matters under the Regulation.
• Case C-102/15 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich: Demonstrated that fines imposed by competition authorities are administrative matters not covered by the Regulation.
• Case C-98/22 Eurelec Trading: Reinforced the principle that actions by public authorities in enforcing economic public policy are excluded from the Regulation's jurisdiction.
• Colclough v. ACCA [2018] IEHC 85: Provided foundational principles on identifying whether an authority is exercising public law powers.

These precedents collectively reinforce the notion that public authorities, when acting under their statutory powers, operate outside the civil and commercial scope of the Recast Brussels Regulation, thereby limiting the jurisdiction of courts in other member states over such entities.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two-part test derived from the cited precedents to determine jurisdiction:

1. Was the AGCM exercising public law powers?
2. Were these powers exercised in a manner that no private individual could replicate?

Affirmatively answering both questions, the court held that the AGCM's actions during the investigation—requesting investigative assistance, conducting inspections, and seizing documents—constituted the exercise of public authority. These actions, rooted in Italian antitrust legislation, were beyond the capacity of private individuals. Therefore, under Article 1(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, such matters were excluded from its scope, removing jurisdiction from the Irish courts.

Impact

This judgment underscores the robust protection accorded to public authorities under the Recast Brussels Regulation, emphasizing that member states' courts cannot be compelled to adjudicate disputes involving state agencies acting within their statutory mandates. Consequently, entities like AGCM retain exclusive jurisdiction in their home courts regarding actions stemming from their official duties. For businesses operating across EU member states, this reinforces the necessity to engage with competition authorities within their respective jurisdictions rather than seeking redress in foreign courts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court of Ireland's decision in Ryanair v CCPC & AGCM reaffirms the clear boundaries set by the Recast Brussels Regulation regarding the jurisdiction over public authorities. By categorically excluding actions taken by public administrative bodies acting under their statutory powers, the judgment ensures that such entities are protected from litigation in foreign courts, maintaining the integrity and autonomy of member states' regulatory frameworks.

For stakeholders within the EU, particularly multinational corporations and competition authorities, this ruling emphasizes the importance of recognizing jurisdictional limits and respecting the designated domestic venues for legal disputes involving state agencies. It strengthens the framework that balances the enforcement of competition laws across member states while safeguarding public authorities from external judicial interference.