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.
The Council of State Grants the ICA’s Appeal and Reverses the Lower Court’s Ruling Annulling a 2015 Decision Concerning an Unlawful Concerted Practice in the Railways Supply Sector Among Suppliers of Goods and Electromechanical Services for the Railway Sector
On July 11, 2019, the Council of State set aside a judgment issued by the TAR Lazio in 2016,[1] which had annulled an ICA decision fining Firema S.p.A. (“Firema”) approximately €230,000 for its participation, together with 12 other undertakings, in a single and continuous infringement by object consisting of a secret concerted practice in the context of 24 tender procedures for the purchase of goods (mostly coils for electric traction motors) and electromechanical services (mostly repair and maintenance of those engines) for the railway sector called by awarding authority Trenitalia S.p.a.[2]
The ICA, the Italian Communications Authority and the Italian Data Protection Authority Issue a Set of Joint Guidelines and Policy Recommendations on Big Data
On July 2, 2019, the ICA, the Italian Communications Authority and the Italian Data Protection Authority (jointly, the “Authorities”) issued guidelines and policy recommendations on the digital sector, and specifically on Big Data (the “Guidelines”).[1]
The Council of State Annuls a Judgment of the TAR Lazio Concerning the Amount of the Fine for Participation in a Cartels in the Road Safety Barriers Sector in Light of the Applicant’s Reduced Ability To Pay
On June 25, 2019, the Italian Council of State (“Council of State”) partially upheld the appeal lodged by Società Metalmeccanica Fracasso in Liquidazione S.p.A. (“Metalmeccanica Fracasso”) against the judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Latium (“TAR Lazio”) on February 1, 2017 (“Judgment”),[1] which had confirmed the decision of the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) to re-determine the fine imposed on Metalmeccanica Fracasso for an alleged restrictive agreement.[2]
The Council of State Annuls the TAR Lazio’s Decision To Reduce the Fine Imposed on San Marco for a Cartels in the Road Safety Barriers Sector
On June 20, 2019, the Council of State partially annulled a ruling delivered by the TAR Lazio in 2013,[1] which had reduced the fine imposed by the ICA on San Marco S.p.A. – Industria Costruzioni Meccaniche in liquidazione (“San Marco”) for an alleged cartel in the road safety barriers sector.[2] The Council of State held that the TAR Lazio, on the basis of equitable principles and by taking into account the fact that the company was bankrupt, had unlawfully reduced the fine imposed on San Marco.
Complaint Against booking.com and Expedia Brings Hotel Parity Clauses to the Commission’s Docket
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.
The TAR Lazio Upholds the Interim Measures Adopted by the ICA in an Investigation Concerning an Alleged Abuse in the Market for Taxi Demand Management Services in Turin
On June 7, 2019, the TAR Lazio rejected the appeal filed by Società Cooperativa Taxi Torino (“Taxi Torino”) against the interim measures adopted by the ICA on November 29, 2018, in an investigation concerning an alleged abuse in the market for taxi demand management services in Turin.[1]
DCA Finds Narrow MFN Clauses Compatible With Competition Law
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.
The TAR Lazio Upholds the ICA’s Decision to Fine the Italian Football Federation for an Alleged Anticompetitive Agreement in the Market for Professional Services in the Sports Sector
On June 4, 2019, the TAR Lazio upheld a decision issued by the ICA in 2018, which had fined the Italian Football Federation (“FIGC”) for an anticompetitive agreement, consisting of the FIGC’s decision to limit access to the market for professional services provided by sports directors, sport management assistants, talent scouts and match analysts.[1]
The TAR Lazio Annuls in Part an ICA Infringement Decision Finding an Alleged Abuse of Dominant Position in the Maritime Freight Transport Sector
On May 22, 2019, the Regional Administrative Court for Latium (the “TAR”) accepted in part the application for annulment of an ICA decision addressed to maritime carriers Moby and CIN, finding a violation of Article 102 TFEU (the “Decision”).[1]