Cleary Gottlieb

Contact:Read more about Cleary Gottlieb

On 23 July 2021 the CMA published its final report in its market study into the supply of charging for electric vehicles (“EVs”). The study raises concerns that the rollout of charging points has been slow and disjointed, warning that more needs to be done in the sector ahead of the government’s planned ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.

On July 22, 2021, the TAR Lazio dismissed in full the applications filed by Coopservice s.coop.p.a. (“Coopservice”), Allsystem s.p.a. (“Allsystem”), Istituti di Vigilanza Riuniti s.p.a. (“IVRI”) and its parent company Biks Group s.p.a. (“Biks”), Italpol Vigilanza s.r.l. (“Italpol”) and its parent company MC Holding s.r.l. (“MC Holding”), as well as Sicuritalia s.p.a. (“Sicuritalia”) and its parent company Lomafin SGH s.p.a. (“Lomafin”; collectively, the “Parties”) for annulment of the 2019 decision adopted by the ICA in Case I821 (the “Decision”).[1]

On July 12, 2021, the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Latium (the “TAR Lazio”) annulled the overall €228 million fines imposed by the ICA on Fastweb S.p.A. (“Fastweb”), Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“TIM”), Vodafone Italia S.p.A. (“Vodafone”) and Wind Tre S.p.A. (“Wind Tre”; collectively, the “Operators”) for an alleged cartel aimed at coordinating pricing strategies in the transition from a 28-day to a monthly billing period (so-called repricing).[1]

Cleary Gottlieb partners Matteo Beretta, Daniel Culley, Frédéric de Bure, Maurits Dolmans, Paul Gilbert, Francisco Enrique González-Díaz, Thomas Graf, Romina Polley, Kenneth Reinker, Robbert Snelders, and Antoine Winckler, counsel Katharina Apel and Gianluca Faella, senior attorney John Messent, and associates Eugene Kim, Natalia Latronico, Henry Mostyn, Martha Smyth, and Nuna Van Belle contributed to The Dominance and Monopolies Review – Ninth Edition, which was published by Law Business Research.

On July 12, 2021,[1] the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) imposed a €500 million fine on Google for having allegedly not complied with four of the seven injunctions imposed on the company in its April 2020 interim measures’ decision.[2] This is the highest fine ever imposed by the FCA for non-compliance with injunctions. The investigation on the merits is still ongoing.

In a July 7, 2021 ruling, the Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal of the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) in the Sanicorse case, confirming the Paris Court of Appeals’ holding on excessive prices and, more generally, unfair terms (also called “exploitative abuses”).[1] This is a major setback for the FCA, which intended to use the legal reasoning developed in the Sanicorse decision in other (pricing or non-pricing) unfair terms cases.

On July 6, 2021, the Court of Naples upheld a claim for damages filed by a logistics company (the “Applicant”) against one truck manufacturing company (the “Defendant”) in connection with the purchase of a truck falling within the scope of a European Commission decision of July 2016 (the “2016 Decision”).[1] The 2016 Decision established that the Defendant and four other truck manufacturers colluded for 14 years on truck pricing and on passing on the costs of compliance with emission rules.[2] While several similar claims are currently pending in Italy, this is the first known case in which a court awarded damages.