On May 9, 2019, the German Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) ruled that access to the preparatory notes (so-called “opinions”) of the rapporteurs of the FCO’s decision divisions under the German Freedom of Information Act is restricted, because public access to the rapporteurs’ opinions would jeopardize the decision divisions’ deliberation process.[1] The FAC thus ultimately confirmed the FCO’s denial of a journalist association’s access request to information on one of the FCO’s merger assessments, including access to the rapporteur’s opinions.
FCO Rapporteurs’ Opinions Protected From Access
On May 9, 2019, the German Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) ruled that access to the preparatory notes (so-called “opinions”) of the rapporteurs of the FCO’s decision divisions under the German Freedom of Information Act is restricted, because public access to the rapporteurs’ opinions would jeopardize the decision divisions’ deliberation process.[1] The FAC thus ultimately confirmed the FCO’s denial of a journalist association’s access request to information on one of the FCO’s merger assessments, including access to the rapporteur’s opinions.
Wolseley and Others v Fiat Chrysler and Others
This case is one of seven sets of ongoing proceedings against addressees of the July 2016 European Commission decision which fined participants in a truck manufacturing cartel (the so-called “Trucks” cases).
CMA’s Use of Director Disqualification Powers Reflects Renewed Focus On Individual Responsibility
In May 2019, the CMA obtained competition disqualification undertakings (“CDUs”) from three individuals for involvement in a cartel relating to
The TAR Lazio Quashes Two Infringement Decisions by the ICA Regarding an Alleged Parallel Network of Anticompetitive Vertical Agreements Between Radio Taxi Companies and Drivers Active in Rome and Milan
Refusal to Supply Essential Information: The ICA Fines Legal Monopolist in the Local Public Transport Sector
On April 10, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) levied a fine of € 1.1 million on SAD – Trasporto Locale S.p.A. (“SAD”), a company entrusted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (“APB”) with the provision of suburban public passenger land transport services in the Bolzano area, for an alleged infringement of Article 102 TFEU.[1] According to the ICA, SAD abused its dominant position on the local market for suburban public passenger land transport services, by refusing to provide the APB with information necessary to carry out a public tender procedure for the assignment of transport services in the Alto Adige region.
Dixon/Europcar v Mastercard
On 9 April 2019, the CAT granted Mastercard partial permission to appeal the CAT’s February 2019 judgment. In that judgment
The Commission Issues a Statement of Objections to BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen for Colluding To Equip Vehicles With Inferior Emissions Control Equipment
On April 5, 2019, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections (“SO”) to BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen (“VW”) alleging that the car manufacturers conspired to halter the development of clean emissions technology for passenger cars running on petrol and diesel.[1]
Stuttgart Court of Appeals Rules on the Beginning of the Suspension of Limitation Periods
On April 4, 2019, the Stuttgart Court of Appeals confirmed the Stuttgart Regional Court’s judgment that found Daimler liable for damages as a result of its participation in the Trucks Cartel.[1] In particular, the Stuttgart Court of Appeals held that the limitation period for damages arising from the Trucks Cartel had been suspended as of the European Commission’s (“EC”) dawn raid of the defendant’s premises in 2011.
Recent Jurisprudence on Prima Facie Evidence vs. Factual Presumption in Cartels Follow-on Damages Actions
On December 11, 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) held that, at least in relation to quota fixing and customer allocation cartels, plaintiffs could no longer rely on prima facie evidence to establish that a cartel infringement led to causal damage.[1] The FCJ accepted, however, a factual presumption (tatsächliche Vermutung)— softer compared to prima facie evidence—that cartels would lead to an overcharge, and held that such a presumption was of “high indicative significance”. Since then, lower courts have rendered a number of judgments and struggled with applying the new evidentiary standard in practice.