Public Services

On 17 April 2020, the CAT handed down its preliminary issue judgment on whether the defendant, Creative Scotland, constitutes an undertaking for the purposes of the Competition Act 1998. The issue arose in a claim by Strident Publishing Limited, a small independent book publisher, for an alleged abuse of dominance by Creative Scotland in breach of the Chapter 2 prohibition, by providing “investment finance” to publishers of literary works.

On April 17, 2019, the ICA found that 19 undertakings allegedly participated in a cartel that affected the outcome of the so-called “Facility Management 4” tender procedure, the biggest European public tender for the provision of cleaning and maintenance services for public offices ever to be launched in Italy (by Consip, the central purchasing agency owned by the Ministry for Economy and Finance).[1] The said tender was divided in 18 geographical lots and had a total value of approximately €2.7 billion.

On April 10, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) levied a fine of € 1.1 million on SAD – Trasporto Locale S.p.A. (“SAD”), a company entrusted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (“APB”) with the provision of suburban public passenger land transport services in the Bolzano area, for an alleged infringement of Article 102 TFEU.[1] According to the ICA, SAD abused its dominant position on the local market for suburban public passenger land transport services, by refusing to provide the APB with information necessary to carry out a public tender procedure for the assignment of transport services in the Alto Adige region.

On December 11, 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) held that, at least in relation to quota fixing and customer allocation cartels, plaintiffs could no longer rely on prima facie evidence to establish that a cartel infringement led to causal damage.[1] The FCJ accepted, however, a factual presumption (tatsächliche Vermutung)— softer compared to prima facie evidence—that cartels would lead to an overcharge, and held that such a presumption was of “high indicative significance”. Since then, lower courts have rendered a number of judgments and struggled with applying the new evidentiary standard in practice.

As the charts below show, enforcement by concurrent competition agencies has increased substantially since the ERRA came into force.[1]…

In November 2013, David Currie – then Chairman of the CMA – identified the low volume of competition cases in regulated sectors: “These sectors account in total for some 25% of the economy. They are also typically characterised by monopolistic or oligopolistic market structures. This might suggest the need for more, rather than less, competition enforcement than in other parts of the economy.”[1]

On March 22, 2019, the European Commission’s Hearing Officer published his Activity Report for 2017-2018.[1] The Report provides key statistics on the Hearing Officer’s activity as well as a useful summary of case law on various procedural issues.

On March 19, 2019, the Commission introduced eLeniency, a new online tool for submitting documents and corporate statements in the…

In a March 18, 2019 paper entitled “EU industrial policy after Siemens/Alstom: Finding a New Balance Between Openness and Protection,” the Commission’s think tank, the European Political Strategy Centre, responds to the “significant backlash against EU competition policy” stemming from its prohibition of the Siemens/Alstom merger in February (reported in the EU Competition Law Newsletter of February 2019).[1]

On March 5, 2019, the French Competition Authority celebrated its 10 years of existence. The President of the Competition Authority listed her priorities for the coming years, which include the retail sector and purchasing alliances, digital economy, “predatory” acquisitions and reflection on ex post control, as well as the labour market and labour collective agreements.