European Union

On November 26, 2020, the Commission fined Teva and Cephalon a total of €60.5 million for entering into a pay-for-delay agreement in relation to a sleep disorder drug. This arrangement is alleged to have helped maintain high prices for several years, to the detriment of patients and healthcare systems.[1]

On November 25, 2020, the FCA chose to depart from its long-standing decisional practice on intra- group bidding.[1] Following the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Ecoservice projektai,[2] the FCA concluded that intra-group bids to tenders no longer fall within the ambit of competition law.

On November 18, 2020, the General Court dismissed an appeal by AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai (“Lithuanian Railways”) against a 2017 Commission decision which found that the company had abused its dominant position on the Lithuanian rail freight market by removing a stretch of track connecting Latvia and Lithuania (the “short route”). The Commission found that the conduct prevented one of Lithuanian Railways’ major customers, the Polish stated-owned oil company AB Orlen Lietuva (“Orlen”), from switching transportation services to rival Latvian Railways.[1] The Commission and Lithuanian Railways discussed potential remedies, but failed to reach an agreement. The Commission therefore imposed a fine of €28 million. The General Court partially upheld the Commission decision, reducing the fine from €28 million to €20 million due to the limited territorial scope of the infringement.[2]

On November 10, 2020, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections (“SO”) to Amazon, alleging that Amazon abused its dominance on the market for provision of marketplace services in France and Germany, by accumulating and using sensitive data of independent retailers to benefit Amazon’s own retail business.[1] On the same day, the Commission announced that the investigation into Amazon’s e-commerce business practices was spun-off into a standalone probe.

On October 28, 2020, the Court of Justice rejected an appeal by Pirelli & C. SpA (“Pirelli”) against a 2018 judgment of the EU General Court upholding a 2014 Commission decision which held the power cables manufacturer jointly and severally liable, with its former subsidiary Prysmian, for Prysmian’s participation in a bid-rigging cartel. Pirelli’s appeal focused on the concept of parental liability and the Commission’s obligation to explain its reasoning.

On October 27, 2020, the ICA issued a decision (the “Decision”)[1] fining the Italian Consortium for the Collection, Recycling and Recovery of Plastic Packaging (“COREPLA”) € 27,400,477 for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the market for management of plastic waste recycling services.

On October 15, 2020, Advocate General Pitruzzella advised the Court of Justice to overturn the General Court’s annulment of the Commission’s decision that had found that preferential corporate tax rates enjoyed by FC Barcelona and other clubs amounted to unlawful and incompatible State aid.[1] The Advocate General disagrees with the General Court’s conclusion that the Commission failed to show to the requisite legal standard the existence of an advantage in favor of FC Barcelona and proposes to set aside the judgment under appeal on this basis.

On October 8, 2020, Advocate General Hogan delivered his opinion to the Court of Justice in which he argued the General Court had breached the principle of equal treatment in recalculating the fine imposed in 2014 by the Commission on Italian steel abrasives producer Pometon SpA (“Pometon”). Pometon was fined for participating in an alleged cartel by engaging in price coordination.[1] The Advocate General recommended that the Court of Justice should reduce the fine from €3.9 to €2.6 million.

On October 7, 2020 the Commission accepted commitments offered by Broadcom to address concerns relating to the sale of chipsets used in TV set-top boxes (“STBs”) and in internet modems.[1] This marks the end of a case that unusually combined the use of interim measures and the commitments procedure.[2] The Commission may view this case as a blueprint to achieving expedited resolutions of antitrust investigations in technology markets and beyond.