The Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) fined ferry operator Caronte & Tourist (“C&T”) €3.7 million for charging allegedly excessive prices on a ferry transportation route between Sicily and Calabria between 2017 and 2019 (the “Decision”).[1]
ICA Fines Three Associations of Undertakings in the Italian Cinematographic Industry for Alleged Collective Boycott Against Companies Organizing Outdoor Free Film Screenings
On March 15, 2022, the ICA imposed fines of over €90 million on the associations of undertakings Anica, Anec and Anec Lazio, representing the Italian film and audiovisual industry as well as companies managing cinemas in Italy (jointly the “Associations”), for an alleged collective boycott infringing Article 101 TFEU.[1]
The Tar Lazio Upholds Ica Decision to Fine Tim Over €100 Million for Abusing Ist Dominant Position in the Wholesale and Retail Markets for Broadband and Ultra-broadband Telecommunications Services in Italy
On February 28, 2022, the Regional Administrative Court for Latium (the “TAR Lazio”) rejected the appeal filed by TIM against the ICA’s decision that had imposed a fine of over €116 million imposed by the ICA in 2020 for an alleged abuse of dominant position in the wholesale and retail markets for broadband and ultra-broadband telecommunications services in Italy (the “Judgment”).[1]
The Council of State Revokes Medical Oxygen Cartel Rulings and Orders a Re-assessment of the Cases
In a series of non-final judgments, published between February 15 and 25, 2022 (the “Judgments”),[1] the Council of State upheld the appeals for revocation filed by Medicair Italia S.r.l., Medigas S.r.l., Linde Medicale S.r.l., Sapio Life S.r.l. and Vivisol S.r.l. (the “Parties”), as it found a number of material errors in certain previous judgments of the same court.[2]
The ICA Ends FiberCop Network Proceedings With Commitments
On February 15, 2022, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) accepted the commitments proposed by Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“TIM”), Fastweb S.p.A. (“Fastweb”), FiberCop S.p.A. (“FiberCop”), Tiscali Italia S.p.A. (“Tiscali”), Teemo Bidco S.r.l. (“Teemo”) and KKR & Co. Inc. (“KKR” and, together with TIM, Fastweb, FiberCop, Tiscali and Teemo, the “Parties”) with respect to certain agreements concerning the creation of FiberCop and access to its infrastructure (the “Decision”).[1]
The Council of State Upholds the TAR Lazio Judgments That Annulled an ICA Decision Concerning a Car Financing Cartel
The ICA Fines Water Meter Suppliers €10.4 Million for Bid-rigging
On February 1, 2022, the ICA imposed a fine of approximately €10 million on G2 Misuratori S.r.l., Maddalena S.p.A., Itron Italia S.p.A., Sensus Italia S.r.l. and WaterTech S.p.A. (the “Companies”) for having participated, between December 2011 and September 2019, in an agreement restricting competition in at least 161 public tenders launched by national integrated water service operators for the procurement of meters for the legal measurement of water consumption.
The Councel of State Confirms the Lower Court’s Annulment of an ICA Decision Concerning an Alleged Abuse of Dominance in the Newspaper Sector
On January 26, 2022, the Council of State confirmed on appeal the annulment by the TAR Lazio[1] of a decision in which the ICA found that Società Iniziative Editoriali S.p.A. (“SIE”), the publisher of L’Adige, the main daily newspaper in the area of Trento, abused its dominant position in the daily newspaper market in that geographic area (the “Decision”).
The Council of State Upholds a TAR Lazio Judgment Finding That an ICA Investigation Into an Alleged Abuse of Dominance in the Retail Electricity Sector Was Adequate and Sufficient
Italian Supreme Court rejects as Inadmissible an Application for Cassation of a Council of State Judgment in a Bid Rigging Case
By an order issued on January 18, 2022,[1] the Italian Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible an application lodged by Kuadra S.r.l. (“Kuadra”) for cassation of a ruling delivered in 2019 by the Council of State,[2] which upheld an ICA decision fining Kuadra for its participation in an alleged anticompetitive agreement aimed at altering the outcome of a public tender for cleaning and maintenance services (the “Decision”),[3] after the TAR Lazio had set it aside at first instance.[4]