On September 9, 2024, Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank and former Italian Prime Minister, presented his report on the Future of European Competitiveness (the “Report”), with the objective to inform the work of the incoming Commission. Featured in President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines issued in July,[2] and in several mission letters for the new Commissioners, the Report revived the debate concerning the competitiveness of EU companies in global markets.
On September 3, 2024, in a landmark decision, the European Court of Justice – the EU’s highest court – ruled in favor of Illumina in its challenge to the EC’s unprecedented assertion of jurisdiction over a transaction that met no notification thresholds at either EU or Member State level.
On September 5, 2024, the European Commission (“Commission”) published a Staff Working Document[1] summarizing the outcome of an evaluation of Regulations 1/2003 and 77/2004, which govern the procedural framework for enforcing EU competition rules under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (“EU Antitrust Enforcement Framework”). On the same day, the Commission adopted a report on the use of interim measures by National Competition Authorities (“NCAs”).[2]
On August 19, 2024, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) unconditionally cleared Bouygues Telecom’s acquisition of sole control of La Poste Telecom (together “the Parties”) through the acquisition of La Poste Group’s 51% stake. SFR owned the remaining 49% of La Poste Telecom and had a right of first refusal on La Poste Group’s shares that were for sale, as well as a right of approval over the buyer of those shares.[1] The acquisition was completed on November 15, 2024.[2]
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Barry Hawk, one of antitrust
On July 29, 2024, the Court of Justice issued its preliminary ruling in case C-298/22 Banco BPN v. BIC Português and others.[1] The Court confirmed that a “standalone” exchange of information between competitors – meaning that the information exchange in question constitutes the examined conduct in itself and is not ancillary to any other conduct – can be deemed a restriction of competition by object under Article 101 TFEU. This ruling is important because it clarifies that information exchange can constitute a restriction by object, even if it is not linked to a wider anti-competitive practice and no actual market impact has been shown.[2]
In a decision dated July 24, 2024,[1] the Paris Court of Appeals granted a stay of execution in relation to a €2,700,000 fine imposed on the Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires (“ANIA”) by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) in the Bisphenol A case only considering the manifestly excessive consequences of such sanction in view of ANIA’s financial situation and without examining its merits.
On June 17, 2024, the German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) unconditionally cleared the acquisition of Olink Holding AB (publ) (“Olink”) by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (“Thermo Fisher”) following the FCO’s first in-depth investigation of a case caught by the transaction value threshold.[1]
On July 17, 2024, the General Court dismissed ByteDance Ltd (“ByteDance”)’s appeal against the Commission’s decision designating ByteDance as a “gatekeeper” under the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”).[1] This marks the first judgment interpreting the DMA’s provisions and clarifying some of its intervention thresholds. The General Court’s ruling follows its earlier rejection of ByteDance’s application for interim measures.[2]
On May 3, 2024, the French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control[1] (“DGCCRF”) published its 2023 annual report (the “Report”).[2] The Report highlights the DGCCRF’s importance in cartel and other anti-competitive behavior detection in France, as well as its new roles, including taking part in the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”).[3]