European Union

On October 6, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice handed down a landmark judgment concerning the issue of downward liability in antitrust follow-on damages claims.[1] While the parental (or upward) liability doctrine has long been established,[2] for the first time, the Court of Justice shed light on whether subsidiaries can be held liable for their parents’ antitrust infringements in both public and private enforcement contexts. The ruling answered this question affirmatively, so long as the subsidiary and the parent company form part of the same undertaking.

On September 22, 2021, the General Court dismissed Altice’s appeal against two fines totalling €124.5 million imposed by the Commission in 2018 (the “Decision”)[1] for exercising control over PT Portugal before the acquisition had received merger control clearance, i.e., gun-jumping.

In March 2021, the Commission adopted a Communication (the “Guidance”)[1] on the application of the referral mechanism pursuant to Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”). The Guidance encourages national competition authorities (“NCAs”) to refer to the Commission certain transactions[2] that do not meet national merger control thresholds and would otherwise escape merger control review in the EU. The Commission had long discouraged the referral of such cases, considering that they were generally unlikely to have a significant impact on the internal market.

On September 10, 2021, the European Commission published a policy brief on “Competition Policy in Support of Europe’s Green Ambition” (the “Policy Brief”).[1] A year after Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager called for a greener EU competition policy,[2] the Policy Brief summarizes the key takeaways from the stakeholder consultation and sets out the Commission’s ambitions for a greener competition policy. The key message being that “a green competition policy still has to be – well, a competition policy.”[3]

On September 2, 2021, Advocate General (“AG”) Bobek issued his opinions on two preliminary ruling requests, Bpost[1] and Nordzucker (the “Opinions”),[2] recommending to harmonize the principle of ne bis in idem—otherwise known as the double jeopardy test—in the EU, as it applies to all branches of EU law. AG Bobek suggested that application of the ne bis in idem principle should be based on a “triple identity” test: namely, of the offender, the relevant facts, and the protected legal interest.[3]

On September 24, 2019, the General Court annulled a €33.6 million fine imposed by the Commission on HSBC for its participation in the Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (“EIRD”) cartel.[1] The General Court upheld the infringement finding, but annulled the fine because the Commission had failed to sufficiently explain its fine calculation methodology, as previously reported.[2]

On June 11, 2021, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) published a draft to update its Notice on fines.[1] The draft is subject to a public consultation which was held between June 11 and 25, 2021. According to the FCA, the update was prompted by the entry into force of ordinance No.2021-649 of May 26, 2021, which implements Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 11, 2018 (“ECN+ Directive”), whose aim is to strengthen and harmonize competition enforcement by national authorities.