On September 18, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) issued a decision[1] finding that Com Metodi S.p.A. (“Com Metodi”), Sintesi S.p.A. (“Sintesi”), Igeam S.r.l., Igeamed S.r.l. and Igeam Academy S.r.l. (jointly, “Igeam”) participated in a cartel affecting the outcome of the open tender procedure for the provision of integrated health and safety management services in the workplace at Italian public administrations, launched by Consip S.p.A. (“Consip”), the central purchasing agency owned by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, in December 2015 (the “SIC 4 Tender” and the “Decision”, respectively).
Access to File: The Tar Lazio Emphasizes the Boundary Between the Rights of Defense and the Right of Access to Leniency Applications
On September 16, 2019, the TAR Lazio rejected the application for annulment filed by MP Silva S.r.l. (“MP Silva”) against an ICA decision that had denied the applicant access to the file in an Article 101 TFEU investigation.[1]
The TAR Lazio Upholds an ICA Decision Rejecting a Request To Extend the Effects of a Judgment to an Addressee of a Previous Fining Decision Which Failed To Challenge It in Court
Council of State Reduces Fines in Vending Machines Cartels
On August 5, 2019, the Council of State partially annulled several judgments delivered by the TAR Lazio in 2017,[1] which had upheld the ICA’s decision to fine—among others—Gruppo Illiria S.p.A. (“Illiria”) and Supermatic S.p.A. (“Supermatic”) for having participated in an alleged cartel in the market for vending machines.
ICA Issues Symbolic Fine in Railway Operator Abuse Case
On July 31, 2019, the ICA issued a decision stating that Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A. (“FS”), Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A. (“RFI”) and Trenitalia S.p.A. (“Trenitalia”) had abused their dominant position in the markets for rail infrastructure management and regional rail passenger transportation services in Veneto (the “Decision”).[1] However, the ICA imposed on the firms concerned a symbolic fine of only €1,000, taking into account the fact that the contested practices would ultimately lead to improvements and innovation in the railway infrastructure.
The Milan Court of Appeal Upholds Judgment of Milan Court in Airport Luggage Wrapping Case
On July 30, 2019, the Milan Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) fully upheld a ruling of the Milan Court finding that Società per Azioni Servizi Aeroportuali (“SEA”) and Aeroporti di Roma (“ADR”) had put in place several anticompetitive practices in violation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.[1]
ICA Finds Milan Notarial Board Liable for Anticompetitive Conduct but Does Not Issue a Fine
On July 24, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) issued a decision[1] (the “Decision”) finding that the Milan Notarial Board had violated Article 2 of Law No. 287/90 (the “MNB”). According to the ICA, the MNB allegedly collected disaggregated data on the performance of notaries in the Milan district in order to monitor their economic activity and discourage aggressive competition. However, the anticompetitive use of the data stopped when the ICA started the proceedings and, thus, the cartel did not have any anticompetitive effect. As a consequence, the ICA did not impose a fine.
Commission Fines Qualcomm €242 Million In Its First Predatory Pricing Decision In Almost Two Decades
On July 18, 2019, the Commission fined Qualcomm €242 million for abusing its dominance in the global market for broadband chipsets by selling below cost to “strategically important” customers, to force a competitor out of the market.[1] This is the first time in 16 years that the Commission has fined a company for predatory pricing after the Wanadoo decision of 2003.[2]
The ICA Imposed Fines of €287 Million on the Main Manufacturers of Corrugated Cardboard Sheets and Cases for Two Separate Cartels
On July 17, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) imposed fines in excess of €287 million on 23 companies for two distinct anticompetitive agreements in breach of Article 101 TFEU (the “Decision” and the “Infringements”, respectively).[1] According to the ICA, the two cartels were implemented in two different markets which were vertically related to each other, namely the upstream market for corrugated cardboard sheets (the “Sheets Cartel”) and the downstream market for corrugated cardboard cases (the “Cases Cartel”). The Infringements allegedly also involved the relevant trade association Gruppo Italiano Fabbricanti Cartone Ondulato (“GIFCO”).
The 2014 Ica Decision That Fined Novartis and Roche for an Anticompetitive Agreement Aimed at Creating an Artificial Differentiation Between Two Allegedly Equivalent Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Age-related Macular Degeneration, Is Upheld by a Final Ruling of the Council of State
On July 15, 2019, the Council of State rejected an appeal filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche LTD and Roche S.p.A. (“Roche”), as well as Novartis Farma S.p.A. and Novartis AG (“Novartis”; jointly, the “Parties”) against a judgment issued in 2014 by the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Latium (the “TAR Lazio”).[1] As a consequence, the 2014 decision by which the ICA fined the Parties approximately €180 million overall for a violation of Article 101 TFEU (the “Decision”)[2] became final. According to the Decision, the Parties colluded with a view to creating an artificial differentiation between two medicinal products that were equivalent for the treatment of eye diseases, in order to increase sales of the more expensive one.