„Greenpeace“ und andere Beiladungsentscheidungen des OLG Dusseldorf

Zusammenfassung

Im Zusammenhang mit dem Ministererlaubnisverfahren „E.ON/Ruhrgas“ hatte das OLG Dusseldorf über eine Reihe von Beschwerden zu befinden, die sich gegen Entscheidungen des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft über Antrage auf Beiladung zum Ministererlaubnisverfahren richteten. Im Folgenden werden drei dieser Entscheidungen (betreffend die Beiladungsbegehren von Greenpeace e. V., des Zweckverbands Gasversorgung Oberschwaben und der Dynergy Europe Ltd.) herausgegriffen, weil ihnen die vergleichsweise selten gebliebene Beurteilung zugrunde liegt, dass eine Beiladung- aus jeweils unterschiedlichen Gründen - nicht ausgesprochen werden durfte oder musste. I n einer vierten Entscheidung (betreffend die ares Energie AG) war der Antragsteller zwar im Ergebnis beizuladen, doch steht auch sie für eine bestimmte Fallgruppe, in der eine Beiladung typischerweise zu versagen ist.

Abstract

The E.ON/Ruhrgas case illustrates the importance of procedural issues, which were often neglected in the past. Apart from important rulings on jurisdiction and the right to a hearing the Court of Appeals (OLG) of Dusseldorf had to decide on various questions concerning the summons to interested parties (section 54 paragraph 2 of the German Act against the Restraints of Competition (ARC): „Beiladung“). In four of the ancilliary proceedings concerning the summons of interested third parties the court delivered judgments of major importance for the development of this area of law.

Third parties interested to be admitted to the administrative proceedings have to show that their interests will be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings. The court kept its former approach of a wide definition of ,interest". According to the traditional approach even indirect effects may suffice as long as they have any relevance concerning competition law. While keeping this wide approach the court set up a high standard of substantiation in relation to the affected interests. As far as the typical affected interests of competitors, customers or suppliers are concerned these third parties will easily be able to establish the effect of a merger on their interests. However, for parties representing general interests (e.g. Greenpeace or consumer protection associations) the establishment of affected interests according to this high standard might be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless the court accepts in principle that these interests might suffice to grant admittance to the proceedings.

In another judgment the court maintained the position established before the last reform of the ARC that the admittance is within the discretion of the cartel authority even if all preconditions for an admittance are fulfilled. This is of relevance if two third parties apply for summons and both parties represent similar interests. In this case the cartel authority may just grant admittance for one of the parties. This has to be pointed out as rights of third parties to challenge merger control decisions have been improved and linked with the admittance to the administrative proceedings by the last reform of the ARC.

Two other judgments concerned temporal aspects of summons to interested parties. The court held that in case that the affected interests become irrelevant because of a bankruptcy etc. of the third party, the summons become unlawful and can be challenged by the other parties of the proceedings. In yet another case the court confirmed earlier rulings that in principle admittance cannot be granted after the decision of the cartel authority has been challenged by one of the parties of the proceedings.