European Union

On November 10, 2021, the General Court upheld the Commission’s decision finding that Google had committed an abuse by favoring its own comparison shopping service (“CSS”).[1] The Commission previously found that Google positioned and displayed, in its general search results pages, its own CSS more prominently than competing CSSs. The Commission imposed on Google a fine of €2.42 billion.[2] In the judgment, the General Court largely dismissed Google’s appeal against the Commission’s decision and confirmed the amount of the fine.

On October 29, 2021, for the first time, the Commission imposed interim measures on companies that closed a deal before obtaining merger approval. On August 18, 2021, U.S. gene-sequencing company Illumina publicly announced it had acquired Grail, a start-up that has developed multi-cancer early detection tests.

The Commission is returning to the office; but not just to its own. It recently launched dawn raids in three separate investigations and warned of more to come after two years of inactivity in this regard. The COVID-19 pandemic made it impracticable for the Commission to conduct dawn raids, let alone coordinate in multiple countries at once. The receding pandemic, however, allows for a rise in dawn raids.

On October 6, 2021, the Court of Justice dismissed eight appeals[1] brought against the 2019 judgments of the General Court, upholding the classification of Spanish tax rules on the amortization of financial goodwill as State aid incompatible with the internal market. The judgments are noteworthy as the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, shed light on the interpretation of the notion of selectivity—one of the cumulative criteria required for a national measure to qualify as State aid contrary to EU law.

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]