On September 5, 2024, the European Commission (“Commission”) published a Staff Working Document[1] summarizing the outcome of an evaluation of Regulations 1/2003 and 77/2004, which govern the procedural framework for enforcing EU competition rules under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (“EU Antitrust Enforcement Framework”). On the same day, the Commission adopted a report on the use of interim measures by National Competition Authorities (“NCAs”).[2]
On July 29, 2024, the Court of Justice issued its preliminary ruling in case C-298/22 Banco BPN v. BIC Português and others.[1] The Court confirmed that a “standalone” exchange of information between competitors – meaning that the information exchange in question constitutes the examined conduct in itself and is not ancillary to any other conduct – can be deemed a restriction of competition by object under Article 101 TFEU. This ruling is important because it clarifies that information exchange can constitute a restriction by object, even if it is not linked to a wider anti-competitive practice and no actual market impact has been shown.[2]
On February 9, 2024, the General Court[1] dismissed an application from ByteDance Ltd (“ByteDance”), the parent company of social media platform TikTok, to suspend the Commission decision[2] designating ByteDance as a “gatekeeper” under the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”).[3] ByteDance had argued that compliance with the restrictions on combining data between services (Article 5(2) DMA) and the obligation to provide the Commission with an “independently audited description” of TikTok’s profiling techniques (Article 15 DMA), would lead to serious and irreparable harm.[4] The General Court found that ByteDance had failed to establish such harm to the requisite standard. While the General Court order offers little insight into the substantive debate on the scope of the DMA, it showcases the hurdles gatekeepers have to overcome to seek interim relief from the DMA before the European Courts.
On March 1, 2023, the French Cour de Cassation (i.e., the French Civil Supreme Court) upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ (“Court of Appeals”) judgment awarding Digicel €180 million in damages for harm suffered as a result of anticompetitive practices implemented by Orange from 2000 to 2006 in the mobile telephony sector in the French West Indies and Guyana. However, the Cour de Cassation quashed the Court of Appeals’ finding that interest on the damage award should run from April 1, 2003, given that the harm inflicted to Digicel had not fully materialized at that date.