Industries

On October 7, 2020, the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeals found the top-tier sports association for beach volleyball (Deutscher Volleyball-Verband, “DVV”) liable for abusing its dominant position by discriminating the plaintiffs, two female professional volleyball players.[1] The plaintiffs were awarded USD 17,000 in damages reflecting the prize money the plaintiffs missed out on during that period of time.

On October 5, 2020, the General Court partially annulled three European Commission decisions ordering French supermarket groups Casino and Intermarché to submit to unannounced inspections.1[1]The General Court found that the Commission did not have sufficiently strong evidence to suspect one of the alleged infringements and had therefore breached the dawn raided companies’ right to the inviolability of the home.

On October 5, 2020, the French Tribunal des Conflits confirmed that the Paris Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to rule on the appeal lodged by Google against an FCA interim measures decision, in which Google alleged that the FCA had breached its right to the protection of business secrets by publishing information that had previously been granted confidential treatment by the investigation services.[1]

On October 5, 2020, the General Court dismissed an action for annulment by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement (the “parent companies”) against the Commission’s April 2017 decision,[1] which prohibited their acquisition of Cemex’s Croatian and Hungarian subsidiaries through Duna-Dráva Cement (“DDC”), a full-function JV (“JV”) equally owned and controlled by the parent companies. [2]

October 2020 saw important developments with respect to the procedural framework surrounding the Commission’s evidence-gathering powers. A General Court judgment on the appropriateness of dawn raids at three French supermarket chains and the Court’s interim order regarding the Commission’s ongoing probe into Facebook’s data practices both have practical implications for companies under investigation.

In October 2020, the Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) initiated an investigation against Amazon’s and Apple’s agreement to exclude non-authorized dealers from selling Apple products on the Amazon Marketplace.[1] While the FCO has not published a press release about the proceedings yet, the investigation is expected to focus on whether combatting product piracy justifies this practice.

On September 28, 2020, the Council of State[1] dismissed the appeal brought by Buzzi Unicem S.p.A. (“Buzzi”) for the revocation of a judgment previously delivered by the same court, which upheld the lower court’s ruling as well as an ICA decision fining an alleged cartel in the cement sector.[2] Buzzi challenged the judgment before the Council of State on grounds of error of fact.[3]