Cleary Gottlieb

On October 20, 2021, the Court of Naples upheld a claim for damages filed by an Italian logistics company (the “Applicant”), on the basis of a European Commission decision of July 2016,[1] against truck manufacturer Iveco S.p.A. (“Iveco”), in connection with the plaintiff’s purchase of numerous trucks from the defendant. According to the European Commission decision, Iveco and four other truck manufacturers colluded for over 13 years on truck pricing and on the costs of compliance with emission rules (the “EC Decision”).[2]

On 19 October 2021, the CAT published its judgment on the strike-out and collective proceedings order (CPO) applications in the claims brought by Mr. Justin Gutmann alleging abuse of dominance by London & South Eastern Railway Limited, First MTR South Western Trains Limited, and Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited.

In a judgment dated October 19, 2021, the Cour de cassation quashed a Paris Court of Appeal’s judgment invalidating inspections carried out by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) at Swarovski France’s (“Swarovski”) headquarters in July 2019.[1] The judgment is in line with recent Cour de cassation rulings favorable to the FCA.

The Commission is returning to the office; but not just to its own. It recently launched dawn raids in three separate investigations and warned of more to come after two years of inactivity in this regard. The COVID-19 pandemic made it impracticable for the Commission to conduct dawn raids, let alone coordinate in multiple countries at once. The receding pandemic, however, allows for a rise in dawn raids.

On October 6, 2021, the Court of Justice dismissed eight appeals[1] brought against the 2019 judgments of the General Court, upholding the classification of Spanish tax rules on the amortization of financial goodwill as State aid incompatible with the internal market. The judgments are noteworthy as the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, shed light on the interpretation of the notion of selectivity—one of the cumulative criteria required for a national measure to qualify as State aid contrary to EU law.

On October 6, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice handed down a landmark judgment concerning the issue of downward liability in antitrust follow-on damages claims.[1] While the parental (or upward) liability doctrine has long been established,[2] for the first time, the Court of Justice shed light on whether subsidiaries can be held liable for their parents’ antitrust infringements in both public and private enforcement contexts. The ruling answered this question affirmatively, so long as the subsidiary and the parent company form part of the same undertaking.