Industries

On December 3, 2019, the Monopoly Commission published the eleventh edition of its biennial sector report on telecommunications markets.[1] The report observes that the state has to intervene increasingly in the telecommunications markets because investments of private telecommunication companies do not meet the political networks development targets in Germany. The Monopoly Commission advises that subsidies should be moderate and targeted to areas where development by private parties is insufficient in order to minimize crowding out of private investments.

On December 3, 2019, the Commission published its decision granting steel company Evraz Group S.A.’s (“Evraz”) request for a partial waiver of commitments it submitted as part of its acquisition of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation Limited (“Highveld”). The Commission cleared the transaction in 2007, subject to divestment and behavioral commitments to address its concerns regarding anticompetitive effects in the markets for the supply of high-purity vanadium pentoxide and vanadium chemicals. The commitments also addressed concerns regarding a potential foreclosure of downstream competitors on the markets for vanadium oxides and finished vanadium products.

On November 29, 2019, the Council of State partially annulled[1] a judgment delivered by the TAR Lazio in 2018[2], which had upheld the ICA’s decision to impose on Holcim Italia S.p.A. (“Holcim”) a fine amounting to €2, 381,252 for participating in a price-fixing cartel concerning the Italian cement market.[3]

On November 28, 2019, the Court of Justice partially granted the appeal brought by ABB and annulled a part of the Commission’s Power Cables decision.[1] In particular, the Court of Justice upheld ABB’s argument that the Commission did not adduce sufficient evidence that the cartel extended to accessories for power cables with voltages between 110 kV and 220 kV. The Court of Justice criticized the General Court for using a wrong evidentiary standard in reviewing the Commission’s decision.

On November 14, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal brought by Silec Cable.[1] In particular, the Court rejected Silec’s claims that the General Court had (i) incorrectly interpreted the content of its email communications as evidencing its involvement in the cartel; (ii) erroneously applied the legal test of public distancing from the cartel (i.e., Silec was not required to distance itself as it did not participate in any meetings); and (iii) wrongly denied them a ‘fringe player’ status, compared to another cartel participant, refusing to grant a fine reduction on this basis.

On November 14, 2019, the Paris Court of Appeals annulled a decision of the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) which, for the first time since the 2011 Fining Guidelines, had fined a company for abusing its dominant position through excessive pricing.[1] The Court set the conditions for finding exploitative abuses and held that the FCA had failed to show that Sanicorse’s price increases were “objectively unfair”.

On 13 November 2019, the High Court upheld a judicial review challenge to Ofgem’s decision on the implementation of a tariff cap and the calculation of the wholesale energy cost allowance for the first period of the price cap (Q1 2019). The CMA investigated the energy supply market in June 2016 and concluded that there was ineffective competition in the energy supply market, which had resulted in higher default tariffs being charged to customers.