On 8 October 2021, the CAT made an order permitting St James Holdings Limited (St James Holdings) to
The End Of The Spanish Financial Goodwill Saga: The Court of Justice Expands The Notion Of Selectivity In State Aid Cases
On October 6, 2021, the Court of Justice dismissed eight appeals[1] brought against the 2019 judgments of the General Court, upholding the classification of Spanish tax rules on the amortization of financial goodwill as State aid incompatible with the internal market. The judgments are noteworthy as the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, shed light on the interpretation of the notion of selectivity—one of the cumulative criteria required for a national measure to qualify as State aid contrary to EU law.
The Court Of Justice Confirms That Subsidiaries Can Be Held Liable For The Antitrust Infringements Of Parent Companies
On October 6, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice handed down a landmark judgment concerning the issue of downward liability in antitrust follow-on damages claims.[1] While the parental (or upward) liability doctrine has long been established,[2] for the first time, the Court of Justice shed light on whether subsidiaries can be held liable for their parents’ antitrust infringements in both public and private enforcement contexts. The ruling answered this question affirmatively, so long as the subsidiary and the parent company form part of the same undertaking.
The Supreme Court Fully Dismisses the Appeals Against the Council of State Judgment in the Roche-Novartis Case as Inadmissible
In a judgment delivered on October 5, 2021 (the “Judgment”),[1] the Italian Supreme Court held that the appeals filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Roche S.p.A. (“Roche”), as well as Novartis Farma S.p.A. and Novartis AG (“Novartis” and, together with Roche, the “Parties”), against a ruling issued in 2019 by the Council of State,[2] were inadmissible.
Monopolies Commission Proposed Amendments to the Draft Digital Markets Act
On October 5, 2021, the Monopolies Commission published its Special Report on the draft Digital Markets Act (“DMA”)[1] welcoming many rules of the draft DMA but also proposing amendments.
The Italian Supreme Court Declares Inadmissible as Manifestly Unfounded an Appeal Against a Judgment on a Follow-on Claim for Damages Regarding an Alleged Abuse of a Dominant Position on the Market for Gas Distribution
On October 4, 2021, the Italian Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”)[1] confirmed a judgment of the Florence Court of Appeal, which had upheld the damages claim of Pace Strade s.r.l. (“Pace Strade”) against Toscana Energia S.p.A. (“Toscana Energia”).
The Google Android Hearing Before The General Court Of The European Union
In a five-day session, between September 27, 2021 and October 2, 2021, the General Court of the European Union (the “General Court”) heard Google’s and the European Commission’s (the “Commission”) arguments in the Google Android case.
The ICA Accepts Commitments by Ania in Relation to an “Anti-fraud Project” in Life and Non-life Insurance
On September 21, 2021, the ICA accepted and made binding the commitments offered by the Italian National Association of Insurance Companies (the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici or “ANIA”) regarding the implementation of its “anti-fraud project” in life and non-life insurance (the “Project”).[1]
The Paris Court of Appeals Upholds the Dismissal of Molotov’s Complaint Against Broadcasters TF1 and M6
On September 30, 2021, the Paris Court of Appeals upheld the FCA’s decision of April 24, 2020 (the “Decision”) to dismiss Molotov’s complaint regarding certain practices allegedly carried out by the two main private free-to-air television broadcasters in France, TF1 and M6. The Court held that, in line with the FCA’s findings, neither the evidence on file nor that adduced by the complainant were sufficient to establish any of the alleged infringements.
Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc
On 27 September 2021, the CAT issued its judgment on an application by the proposed Class Representative Mr Le Patourel, for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO), and an application by BT (a) to strike out the claim pursuant to Rule 41(1) (b) of The Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 (the Rules) on the basis that there were no reasonable grounds for making it and/or (b) for summary judgment to dismiss the claim pursuant to Rule 43(1)(a) of the Rules on the basis that it had no real prospect of success.