On June 3, 2021, Advocate General Pitruzzella delivered an Opinion in the Optical Disk Drives case, finding that the Commission breached the appellants’ rights of defense, but that the fines imposed should nevertheless stand.[1]
Cleary Gottlieb
Contact:Read more about Cleary Gottlieb
Facebook Offers Commitments To Address Competition Concerns in the Online Advertising Sector
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On June 3, 2021, the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) launched a public consultation to assess the adequacy of the commitments (the “Commitments”) offered by Facebook Inc., Facebook Ireland Ltd, and Facebook France (together, “Facebook”) as part of the FCA’s investigation into allegedly abusive online advertising practices by Facebook.
The Commission Re-adopts and Amends the YIRD Cartels Decision Against ICAP, Halving the Total Fine
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On July 10, 2019, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s partial annulment of the Commission’s 2015 decision to fine ICAP c. €15 million for facilitating a cartel in the Yen Interest Rate Derivatives (“YIRD”) market between 2007 and 2010.[1]
Sabre Corporation v Competition and Markets Authority
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On 21 May 2021, the CAT dismissed Sabre’s challenge of the CMA’s decision to block its proposed acquisition of Farelogix.…
Courts Endorse CMA’s Broad Discretion in Merger Cases
By Cleary Gottlieb on
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and Court of Appeal have upheld decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in two significant merger cases. These judgments endorse both the CMA’s assertive approach to establishing jurisdiction over transactions with limited UK nexus and its policy of imposing global hold separate orders over both parties in completed mergers, and underline the broad discretion that the courts will allow the CMA in deciding how to carry out merger investigations.
The Council of State Confirms the ICA’s Assessment of the “Value of Sales” and the “Entry Fee” in Calculating the Fines for a Bid Rigging Case
By Cleary Gottlieb on
Update on the Commission’s Anti-cartels Enforcement
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On May 20, 2021, the Commission issued a decision fining several banks for participation in an alleged cartel in European government bonds (“EGB”) trading.[1] The Commission decision found that seven investment banks (Bank of America, Natixis, Nomura, UBS, UniCredit, RBS, and WestLB (now called Portigon)) participated in an alleged collusive scheme aimed at distorting competition in purchasing and trading EGBs.[2] EGBs are financial instruments issued on the primary market for the purposes of raising debt capital by the governments of the Eurozone Member States. Once bought by “primary dealers” in primary market auctions, EGBs are traded on the secondary market among investors and financial institutions.
FCJ Confirms Narrow MFN Clauses as Anticompetitive
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On May 18, 2021, the FCJ annulled a 2019 decision of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal (“DCA”) and found the “narrow” most favored nation (“MFN”) clauses used by the hotel booking platform operator Booking Holdings (“Booking.com”) to be incompatible with EU and German competition law.[1]
The Council of State Confirms a TAR Lazio Judgment That Upheld an ICA Decision Concerning a Cartels in the Helicopter Transport Services
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On May 6, 2021, the Council of State rejected the appeals lodged by Elifriulia S.r.l and Star Work Sky S.a.s. (the “Parties”)[1] against the TAR Lazio judgment[2] that upheld the 2019 ICA decision fining the Parties approximately €67 million for restrictive agreements concerning certain helicopter transport services.[3]
The TAR Lazio Fully Upholds an ICA Decision That Fined a Legal Monopolist in the Local Public Passenger Transport for Refusal to Supply Essential Information
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On May 17, 2021, the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio (“TAR Lazio”) rejected the application for annulment lodged by SAD – Trasporto Locale S.p.A. (“SAD”), a company entrusted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (“APB”) with the provision of road passenger transport services in the Bolzano area,[1] against the 2019 decision by which the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) fined SAD for abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU.[2]