European Union

On July 4, 2019, following two losses at the EU Courts, the Commission re-adopted its decision to fine five Italian manufacturers of reinforcing steel bars for a price-fixing cartel. The Commission reduced the fines by an unprecedented 50% due to the length of proceedings spanning almost two decades.

On July 1, 2019, following a one-year public consultation with national courts and other stakeholders, the Commission published new guidelines to assist national judges in estimating the “passing-on” of overcharge in cartel damages claims.[1] The guidelines are the latest step in efforts to develop a forum for antitrust damages litigation throughout Europe, given that these actions are, at present, typically confined to a small number of national jurisdictions (the U.K., the Netherlands, and Germany).

On June 27, 2019, the Commission imposed two fines totaling €28 million on Canon in the context of its acquisition of Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation (“TMSC”). The first fine of €14 million was levied for Canon’s failure to notify the Commission prior to the implementation of the transaction in violation of Article 4(1) of the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”). The second fine of €14 million, was imposed as a result of Canon implementing the transaction prior to obtaining clearance, breaching Article 7(1) EUMR.

On June 21, 2019, the Commission conditionally approved in Phase I the acquisition of L3 Technologies (“L3”) by Harris Corporation (“Harris”), both U.S. based aerospace and defence companies. The approval was subject to the divestment of Harris’s night vision devices business.[1]

On June 19, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal against a General Court order rejecting an appeal filed by RF, a Polish transportation company based in Gdynia, a city on the Baltic sea coast.[1] The General Court had rejected RF’s appeal because the original, signed version reached the General Court’s premises after the deadline to file an appeal. The General Court concluded that RF’s failure to meet the deadline due to a postal delay did not amount to an unforeseeable event or force majeure, which would have allowed for its acceptance, notwithstanding its late arrival in Luxembourg.

On June 14, 2019, the European Council adopted the “Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services” (the “Regulation”).[1] The Regulation seeks to address a range of issues in online search and intermediation platform-to-business relationships. It is the first piece of EU legislation to do so.

On June 11, 2019, the Commission prohibited the then-proposed joint venture between Tata Steel and Thyssenkrupp as the parties failed to provide commitments that fully addressed the Commission’s concerns.[1] In Thyssenkrupp’s view, offering commitments would have “adversely affected the intended synergies of the merger to such extent that the economic logic of the joint venture would no longer be valid.”[2]

On June 11, 2019, Nustay, a Danish online booking agency, filed a complaint with the Commission against Expedia and Booking.com, alleging a breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The complaint centers on parity clauses in online hotel booking. In 2015, both Expedia and Booking.com agreed with the Danish Competition Authority to remove wide price-parity clauses from their contracts with hotels.[1] Nustay alleges that these two companies have de facto re-introduced these clauses through certain commercial practices.

On June 4, 2019, the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals (“DCA”) annulled the FCO’s 2015 decision prohibiting hotel booking platform operator Booking Holdings (“Booking.com”) from using narrow most favored nation (“MFN”) clauses.[1] The DCA’s decision aligns the German position with that of other European national competition authorities (“NCAs”). However, new causes of divergence—stemming from legislative interventions—are already emerging.