Consumer Goods & Retail

On March 19, 2019, the Commission introduced eLeniency, a new online tool for submitting documents and corporate statements in the

In a March 18, 2019 paper entitled “EU industrial policy after Siemens/Alstom: Finding a New Balance Between Openness and Protection,” the Commission’s think tank, the European Political Strategy Centre, responds to the “significant backlash against EU competition policy” stemming from its prohibition of the Siemens/Alstom merger in February (reported in the EU Competition Law Newsletter of February 2019).[1]

On March 5, 2019, the French Competition Authority celebrated its 10 years of existence. The President of the Competition Authority listed her priorities for the coming years, which include the retail sector and purchasing alliances, digital economy, “predatory” acquisitions and reflection on ex post control, as well as the labour market and labour collective agreements.

In a decision issued on February 28, 2019, the FCA authorized, subject to conditions, the acquisition of the Marie Brizard Group by Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de Participation (Cofepp).[1] Marie Brizard and Cofepp’s businesses overlap on the wine and spirits market. After having ruled out any risk of harm to competition on the on-trade channel (cafés, hotels, restaurants, etc.), the FCA examined the effects of the transaction on the mass retail channel.

On February 14, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) found in SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, that the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court had not violated SA-Capital’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by partially relying on hearsay evidence in finding the existence and the scope of a cartel.[1] In particular, given the evidentiary complexity of cartel infringements, the ECtHR concluded that national competition authorities may use hearsay to the extent their findings do not solely depend on it.[2]

On 12 February 2019, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a fine of £200,000 on Electro Rent for gun-jumping.[1] This is the third occasion on which the CMA has penalised a company for breaching “standstill” or “hold-separate” obligations under the UK merger rules, and comes only one day after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the CMA’s first gun-jumping fine (imposed on Electro Rent in June 2018 for a separate infringement).[2] The CMA has shown increased readiness to penalise companies for breaching procedural rules, in particular in relation to merger proceedings, consistent with recent action by the European Commission (EC) and national agencies in the EU. The CAT’s judgment strongly endorses the CMA’s approach: “[i]t is a matter of public importance that the merger control process, and the duties it creates, are strictly and conscientiously, observed.[3]