On May 8, 2019, the General Court held that cartel participants that do not appeal a Commission infringement decision cannot seek reimbursement of fines paid where that decision is annulled in proceedings to which they were not a party.[1]
Advocate General Tanchey Recommends Dismissing the Commission’s Appeal in Icap
On May 2, 2019, Advocate General Tanchev (“AG Tanchev”) recommended dismissing the Commission’s appeal against the General Court’s ruling in Icap.[1] According to AG Tanchev, the General Court was correct in holding that the Commission’s decision provided insufficient reasoning as regards the determination of the fines imposed on Icap.
The Commission Accepts Visa and Mastercard Commitments That End Decade-long Antitrust Row About Multi-lateral Interchange Fees
Following the Commission’s market test of Visa’s and Mastercard’s commitments offered on April 29, 2019, as reported in our December 2018 newsletter, the Commission accepted the companies’ commitments to cap their inter-regional multi-lateral interchange fees (“MIFs”).[1] The commitments put an end to the first publically reported probe into inter-regional MIFs by any antitrust authority worldwide, which was opened by the Commission in 2013.
The ICA Fines Bid-Rigging Practices in Facility Maintenance Services in Italy
On April 17, 2019, the ICA found that 19 undertakings allegedly participated in a cartel that affected the outcome of the so-called “Facility Management 4” tender procedure, the biggest European public tender for the provision of cleaning and maintenance services for public offices ever to be launched in Italy (by Consip, the central purchasing agency owned by the Ministry for Economy and Finance).[1] The said tender was divided in 18 geographical lots and had a total value of approximately €2.7 billion.
The General Court Dismisses Qualcomm’s Challenge of a Commission Request for Information
On April 9, 2019, the General Court dismissed Qualcomm’s application for annulment of a Commission decision of March 31, 2017, requiring Qualcomm to provide information in the context of an antitrust probe.
Hearing Officer Rules That Statements Made by Former Commissioner Almunia Did Not Breach the Presumption of Innocence in Euribar Proceedings
On April 9, 2019, the Commission published the Final Report of the Hearing Officer on procedural issues relating to its 2016 decision in the Euribor case, in which it fined Crédit Agricole, HSBC and JPMorgan Chase a total of €485 million for participating in a cartel in euro interest rate derivatives.
The Commission Fines General Electric €52 Million For Providing Incorrect Information During Merger Review
On April 8, 2019, the Commission fined General Electric (“GE”) €52 million for providing incorrect information during its 2017 investigation of GE’s acquisition of Danish wind turbine blade manufacturer LM Wind Power Holdings A/S (“LM Wind”).
The Commission Issues a Statement of Objections Over Geo-Blocking Arrangements for Video Games
On April 5, 2019, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections (“SO”) to Valve, the owner of the video game distribution platform Steam, as well as five video game publishers[1] whose video games are distributed by Valve. The SO sets out the Commission’s concerns that the companies have prevented customers from purchasing PC video games online from sellers in certain Member States in Central and Eastern Europe[2] where prices are lower (so-called “geo-blocking”).
The Commission Issues a Statement of Objections to BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen for Colluding To Equip Vehicles With Inferior Emissions Control Equipment
On April 5, 2019, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections (“SO”) to BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen (“VW”) alleging that the car manufacturers conspired to halter the development of clean emissions technology for passenger cars running on petrol and diesel.[1]
The Court of Justice Clarifies the Prohibition of Double Jeopardy in Competition Law Cases
On April 3, 2019, the Court of Justice ruled that a national competition authority can in a single decision fine a company for infringing both EU and national competition law, without infringing the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy).[1]