On June 2, 2019, the Inspection générale des finances and the Conseil général de l’économie published a report on the EU competition policy and industrial strategy (the “Report”). The Report was commissioned by the Ministry of Economy and Finance in December 2018 and aimed at assessing EU competition policy in the context of the 2019 European elections. The Report highlights the necessity to reshape the procedures and legal instruments used by the European Commission, in particular in merger control, to answer a number of criticisms raised by the French and German governments following the decision of the European Commission to prohibit the Alstom- Siemens merger on February 6, 2019.[1] The Report states that competition policy seems to be applied more strictly in Europe than elsewhere, including China, and that the European Union’s strategic and industrial interests should be given more consideration in competition decisions.
The French Conseil Constitutionnel Invalidates the Provisions of the PACTE Law Empowering the Government to Transpose the ECN+ Directive Into French Law
On May 16, 2019, the French Conseil constitutionnel validated most of the provisions of the law on business growth and transformation (“loi relative à la croissance et la transformation des entreprises” or “PACTE law”), but deemed that the provisions relating to the transposition of the ECN+ directive into French law violated the Constitution.
The Conseil Constitutionnel Validates Provisions Enabling the French Competition Authority to Request Access to Telephone Data From Companies’ Employees
On May 16, 2019, the Conseil Constitutionnel issued a decision on the conformity with the French Constitution of various provisions of the Law on the growth and the transformation of companies (“Loi Pacte”).[1] The Conseil censured several provisions of that law for the lack of connection with the initial bill. These included in particular Article 211, which provided the Government with the power to transpose the directive ECN+ into French law, and adopt various measures meant to strengthen the efficiency of procedures implemented by the FCA.
FCO Rapporteurs’ Opinions Protected From Access
On May 9, 2019, the German Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) ruled that access to the preparatory notes (so-called “opinions”) of the rapporteurs of the FCO’s decision divisions under the German Freedom of Information Act is restricted, because public access to the rapporteurs’ opinions would jeopardize the decision divisions’ deliberation process.[1] The FAC thus ultimately confirmed the FCO’s denial of a journalist association’s access request to information on one of the FCO’s merger assessments, including access to the rapporteur’s opinions.
FCO Rapporteurs’ Opinions Protected From Access
On May 9, 2019, the German Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) ruled that access to the preparatory notes (so-called “opinions”) of the rapporteurs of the FCO’s decision divisions under the German Freedom of Information Act is restricted, because public access to the rapporteurs’ opinions would jeopardize the decision divisions’ deliberation process.[1] The FAC thus ultimately confirmed the FCO’s denial of a journalist association’s access request to information on one of the FCO’s merger assessments, including access to the rapporteur’s opinions.
CMA’s Use of Director Disqualification Powers Reflects Renewed Focus On Individual Responsibility
In May 2019, the CMA obtained competition disqualification undertakings (“CDUs”) from three individuals for involvement in a cartel relating to
Recent Jurisprudence on Prima Facie Evidence vs. Factual Presumption in Cartels Follow-on Damages Actions
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.
Enforcement by Numbers
As the charts below show, enforcement by concurrent competition agencies has increased substantially since the ERRA came into force.[1]
Five Years of “Enhanced Concurrency” in UK Antitrust
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]
The Hearing Officer for Competition Proceedings Publishes the Activity Report for 2017-2018
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.