The High Court has dismissed Ryanair’s proceedings against Italy’s competition authority, ruling that Irish courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims against it. Mr Justice Max Barrett also set aside service of the summons on the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM). He did not decide the underlying complaints about the search or the seized material.
The judgment, delivered on 21 May 2024, concerned proceedings brought by Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings PLC against the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) and the AGCM. The companies sought, among other reliefs, to challenge a search warrant, restrict use of material seized at Ryanair’s Dublin headquarters, address claims of legal professional privilege and obtain damages.
The AGCM had asked the CCPC for investigative assistance under EU competition rules. The CCPC obtained a warrant from the Dublin Metropolitan District Court and conducted an inspection at the headquarters on 8 March 2024. Six AGCM staff took part as officers appointed by the CCPC, according to the judgment. After the inspection, AGCM staff returned to Italy with the seized material. Ryanair complained about the warrant, how the search was carried out and the authority’s custody of material it said included privileged documents.
The judge’s decision addressed jurisdiction, not whether Ryanair’s allegations about the search or the material were well founded. Applying the Recast Brussels Regulation and relevant European case law, he found the AGCM was exercising statutory public powers in investigating alleged competition law breaches and requesting assistance from the CCPC. Those powers were not available to private individuals. The proceedings against the AGCM therefore fell outside the Regulation’s scope for civil and commercial matters, the judgment says.
Ryanair argued that the events largely took place in Ireland and relied on provisions of Irish competition legislation. The judge said those points did not change the jurisdictional allocation under the EU regulation. He also rejected Ryanair’s request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding one was not necessary to decide the application.
The AGCM had indicated it would abide by the outcome of disputes about the warrant and privilege, including returning material if the warrant were set aside. Those issues were not decided in this judgment. The judge said the claims against the AGCM could be pursued in Italy under Italian law. He ordered service set aside and dismissed the proceedings against the AGCM for want of Irish jurisdiction. Costs remained to be addressed at a later hearing.