Ryanair cannot sue the Italian competition authority over the raid on its Dublin offices

Ryanair cannot sue the Italian antitrust authority in Ireland over the search of its headquarters in Dublin in March last year, the High Court has ruled.

Judge Max Barrett dismissed the airline’s lawsuit against Italy’s Autorità Garante Della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) on the grounds that the Irish courts lacked jurisdiction.

Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings PLC initiated proceedings on March 8 against the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) and the AGCM in connection with a raid on the airline’s offices near Dublin Airport. About 30 officers, including some from AGCM, took part in the search.

The search was carried out after the AGCM referred the CCPC to the CCPC, which launched an investigation last September following complaints lodged by two Italian travel agent associations and a consumer association.

It was alleged that Ryanair, through its online ticketing system, prevents travel agents from purchasing tickets through its website, where the lowest prices are available, and instead routes them to the global distribution system. In its opinion, this affects competition and constitutes an abuse of its dominant position on the market.

Ryanair denied these claims.

The airline then brought proceedings in Ireland, arguing, among other things, that the search warrant obtained by the CCPC in the District Court was invalid.

She asked the High Court to quash the order and to declare that the material seized during the search was wholly or partly unlawful, inadmissible and should not have been removed from Ireland.

He says, among other things, that the District Court judge who issued the order should have been informed about two key Italian judgments that, in his opinion, confirm his position that he is not abusing his dominant market position.

Last month, Judge Barrett was asked by the AGCM to determine whether Ireland had the proper jurisdiction against it in the Ryanair case.

In his judgment dismissing the case against AGCM, Judge Barrett found that the Ryanair proceedings were covered by an EU regulation (Brussels version) governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

This Regulation does not apply in civil and commercial matters, regardless of the type of court.

The Ryanair case concerned tax, customs and administrative matters as well as state liability for acts and omissions in the exercise of state power, he said.

He therefore agreed to AGCM’s request to discontinue the proceedings against him due to lack of jurisdiction.

On Tuesday, the judge also postponed the case against CCPC until later this month to resolve preliminary issues. He reserved a date for July for the hearing of the entire case.

Martin Hayden SC, representing Ryanair, said his client had also brought proceedings in Italy that had nothing to do with the search warrant.