Renewable Energy, Sustainability & Recycling

On January 29, 2021, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) unconditionally cleared Engie’s acquisition, through its subsidiary Storengy, of a controlling stake in Dijon Métropole Smart EnergHy (“DMSE”), a joint venture between Dijon Métropole and the Rougeot group specialized in the production and distribution of hydrogen.[1] The FCA cleared the concentration even though the combined entity will become the first and sole operator producing and distributing hydrogen in the Dijon area.

In connection with the forthcoming transposition of Directive No. 2019/1 (the “ECN+ Directive”), which exposes professional associations to higher fines for anti-competitive practices, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) has published a study on how competition law applies to professional associations and made a number of practical recommendations.[1]

On 27 January, the CMA published guidance for businesses on the application of UK competition law to co-operative agreements aimed at achieving environmental or sustainability objectives (the Guidance). The role of competition law in supporting environmental initiatives has seen greater focus as the UK government pursues its 2050 net zero target and the European Union seeks to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 (discussed here). The Guidance explains the application of existing block exemptions and guidance for firms assessing whether agreements with sustainability objectives risk infringing competition law, and is part of a wider programme of activities that the CMA is carrying out to support sustainability objectives.

On December 23, 2020, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) presented a summary report of its 2020 activity and set out its priorities for 2021.[1]

On December 14, 2020, six years after the adoption of the Damages Directive,[1] the Commission published a report[2] analyzing its implementation across Member States.[3] The Damages Directive was introduced to harmonize the procedural rules for antitrust damages actions.

Over the past several months, there have been a number of statements by politicians and Member State governments regarding the reform of EU competition law. Much of this debate is fundamentally linked to how authorities should define the relevant product and geographic markets that guide their antitrust and merger investigations.

Decree n°2019-1247 of November 28, 2019, published in the Official Journal of the French Republic on November 29, 2019 (the “Decree”), provides the procedural framework for the FCA’s new power to access telephone communications data for the purpose of antitrust investigations under Article L. 450-3-3 of the French Commercial Code. This framework was introduced by the Pacte Law [1] and allows the FCA to request access to technical information regarding the identity of a caller, the telecommunication terminals used, the data, time, and duration of each call, and the phone numbers called. It will be operational as soon as the Data Request Supervisor (“contrôleur des demandes de données de connexion”) is appointed (the Supervisor will be appointed among the judges of the French Administrative or Civil Supreme Court).[2]

On 6 November, the CMA published new draft guidance on jurisdiction and procedure in UK merger cases (Draft J&P Guidance) and on the CMA’s mergers intelligence function. On 17 November, it published new draft guidance on the substantive assessment of mergers in the UK (Draft Substantive Guidance). The draft sets of Guidance incorporate developments in the case law, reflect the evolution of the CMA’s policies and procedures, and take account of changes in the legal framework concerning public interest mergers. Together, they confirm the CMA’s expansive approach to asserting jurisdiction and reinforce a more interventionist and less formalistic approach to assessing mergers, especially in digital markets, that has been evident in the run-up to Brexit.

On September 16, 2020, the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of the concept of “court or tribunal” within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU.[1] The Court of Justice held the reference for a preliminary ruling inadmissible, for lack of the referring Spanish competition authority (“CNMC”) constituting a “court or tribunal” for the purpose of Article 267 TFEU.