As the charts below show, enforcement by concurrent competition agencies has increased substantially since the ERRA came into force.[1]
Logistics & Transportation

Five Years of “Enhanced Concurrency” in UK Antitrust
In November 2013, David Currie – then Chairman of the CMA – identified the low volume of competition cases in regulated sectors: “These sectors account in total for some 25% of the economy. They are also typically characterised by monopolistic or oligopolistic market structures. This might suggest the need for more, rather than less, competition enforcement than in other parts of the economy.”[1]
The Hearing Officer for Competition Proceedings Publishes the Activity Report for 2017-2018
On March 22, 2019, the European Commission’s Hearing Officer published his Activity Report for 2017-2018.[1] The Report provides key statistics on the Hearing Officer’s activity as well as a useful summary of case law on various procedural issues.
Commission Launches New Online eLeniency Tool
On March 19, 2019, the Commission introduced eLeniency, a new online tool for submitting documents and corporate statements in the…
The Commission Publishes a Paper on EU Industrial Policy After Siemens/Alstom
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]
U.K. Antitrust Collective Damages Action
On 11 March 2019, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) announced that it had received two applications to bring collective proceedings on behalf of all affected commuters, alleging that three U.K. train operators had engaged in exploitative abuses of dominant positions.[1] This is the first time that claimants have filed applications to commence collective proceedings on a standalone basis (i.e., without the benefit of a prior infringement decision that binds the Courts) since the introduction of the collective action procedure on 1 October 2015.
10th Anniversary of the French Competition Authority – Results and Prospects
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.
European Court of Human Rights Rules on the Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Cartels Cases
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]
Prohibition of Siemens/Alstom Triggers Debate About Far-reaching Changes to EU Merger Control
On February 6, 2019, the Commission[1] prohibited the then-proposed combination of Siemens AG’s (“Siemens”) mobility business and Alstom S.A. (“Alstom”) which put an end to the parties’ ambition of creating a European Champion in the rail industry.[2] The Financial Times called this Phase 2 investigation “one of the most important test cases for the commission since it assumed powers to vet EU mergers in 1989.”[3]
Advocate General Wahl Provides Guidance on “Unforseeable Circumstances or Force Majeure” in RF v. Commission
On January 24, 2019, Advocate General Wahl issued an opinion in a Polish company’s (“RF”) appeal before the Court of Justice and provided guidance on “unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure” in the context of a failure to comply with the time limit for lodging an application before the General Court.[1]