On November 3, 2025, the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) imposed a EUR 7.6 million fine on the Parfait group for failing to comply with commitments entered into in the context of its acquisition of a hypermarket and shopping center in Martinique (the “Decision”),[1] illustrating the FCA’s continued vigilance regarding effective implementation of merger remedies. The Parfait group has appealed the Decision.
On October 15, 2025, the French Cour de cassation (“Court”) confirmed a €680,000 fine on the trade union Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France (“CDF”) (“Decision”).[1] The Court held that the CDF’s call for a boycott of certain dental care networks constituted a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article L. 420-1 of the French Commercial Code.[2]
The French Cour de cassation confirms the FCA’s independence in settlement-referral procedures and classifies information exchanges between tenderers, including when exploring subcontracting, as a restriction by object.[1]
On September 24, 2025, the French Cour de cassation upheld the sanction imposed by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) on Vinci group entities active in construction and technical services, and on their subsidiary Santerne Nord Tertiaire (“Santerne”), for unlawful exchanges of confidential information during a public tender procedure.
In May 2025, the Commission launched a public consultation on possible reforms to its merger guidelines, covering seven core topics that underpin how the Commission assesses the competitive impact of mergers.[1] On October 29, the Commission summarized the main trends of the 243 responses[2] it received.[3] The highlights are as follows:
As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we provided our views on Topic Paper E – Digitalization.
In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Hiroo Iwanari, Secretary-General of
In July 2025, the European Commission launched a consultation about its revision of the EU antitrust procedural rules.[1] This is part of a comprehensive evaluation that the Commission initiated in March 2022, to ensure that the procedural framework for the EU’s antitrust enforcement remains “fit for the digital age” after its enactment 20 years ago.[2]
As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we provided our views on Topic Paper D – on Sustainability and Clean Technologies.
In the past year, the General Court has ruled on several challenges to Commission dawn raids initiated against Symrise,[1] Michelin,[2] and Red Bull,[3] clarifying the limits of the Commission’s investigatory powers. In all three cases, the General Court upheld the legality of the inspections,[4] though refined the evidentiary and procedural standards governing dawn raids.[5] The most recent Michelin and Red Bull judgments, in particular: (i) clarified what constitutes “sufficient indicia” for the Commission to initiate a dawn raid; (ii) validated the Commission’s use of new digital tools to gather indicia for dawn raids and its practice of gathering information onsite and later reviewing that information over extended periods of time at the Commission’s premises (“extended inspection”); and (iii) confirmed the Commission’s margin of discretion in selecting the most appropriate investigative measure—such as dawn raids or requests for information—in antitrust investigations.