Industries

On June 25, 2019, the Italian Council of State (“Council of State”) partially upheld the appeal lodged by Società Metalmeccanica Fracasso in Liquidazione S.p.A. (“Metalmeccanica Fracasso”) against the judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Latium (“TAR Lazio”) on February 1, 2017 (“Judgment”),[1] which had confirmed the decision of the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) to re-determine the fine imposed on Metalmeccanica Fracasso for an alleged restrictive agreement.[2]

On June 21, 2019, the Commission conditionally approved in Phase I the acquisition of L3 Technologies (“L3”) by Harris Corporation (“Harris”), both U.S. based aerospace and defence companies. The approval was subject to the divestment of Harris’s night vision devices business.[1]

On June 20, 2019, the Council of State partially annulled a ruling delivered by the TAR Lazio in 2013,[1] which had reduced the fine imposed by the ICA on San Marco S.p.A. – Industria Costruzioni Meccaniche in liquidazione (“San Marco”) for an alleged cartel in the road safety barriers sector.[2] The Council of State held that the TAR Lazio, on the basis of equitable principles and by taking into account the fact that the company was bankrupt, had unlawfully reduced the fine imposed on San Marco.

On June 19, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal against a General Court order rejecting an appeal filed by RF, a Polish transportation company based in Gdynia, a city on the Baltic sea coast.[1] The General Court had rejected RF’s appeal because the original, signed version reached the General Court’s premises after the deadline to file an appeal. The General Court concluded that RF’s failure to meet the deadline due to a postal delay did not amount to an unforeseeable event or force majeure, which would have allowed for its acceptance, notwithstanding its late arrival in Luxembourg.

In June 2019, the CMA published its Merger Remedy Evaluations Report (the Report) – the latest in a series of case evaluations conducted to develop the CMA’s expertise, policy, and practice on merger remedies. The Report notes that its findings will be “used to inform the way in which the CMA approaches remedy design and implementation in subsequent cases.” The Report contains useful guidance for parties on the types of remedies that the CMA is prepared to accept or may require.

On June 14, 2019, the European Council adopted the “Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services” (the “Regulation”).[1] The Regulation seeks to address a range of issues in online search and intermediation platform-to-business relationships. It is the first piece of EU legislation to do so.

In a ruling of June 13, 2019, the French Supreme Court annulled the November 8, 2017 order of the Paris Court of Appeals that confirmed the validity of the search warrants authorizing the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) to carry out dawn raids at Whirlpool France’s premises.[1]

On June 11, 2019, the Commission prohibited the then-proposed joint venture between Tata Steel and Thyssenkrupp as the parties failed to provide commitments that fully addressed the Commission’s concerns.[1] In Thyssenkrupp’s view, offering commitments would have “adversely affected the intended synergies of the merger to such extent that the economic logic of the joint venture would no longer be valid.”[2]

On June 11, 2019, Nustay, a Danish online booking agency, filed a complaint with the Commission against Expedia and Booking.com, alleging a breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The complaint centers on parity clauses in online hotel booking. In 2015, both Expedia and Booking.com agreed with the Danish Competition Authority to remove wide price-parity clauses from their contracts with hotels.[1] Nustay alleges that these two companies have de facto re-introduced these clauses through certain commercial practices.