On February 10, 2021, the French Cour de cassation (the “Cour de cassation”)[1] appeared to put an end to the “Packaged Flour” legal saga, as it dismissed yet another appeal seeking to reform the French Competition Authority’s 2012 prohibition decision.[2]
Jurisdictions
Dortmund Regional Court Aligns Principles for Jurisdiction With EU Law
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On February 10, 2021, the Dortmund Regional Court set out principles for determining jurisdiction, specifically in competition damages litigation.[1]
FCJ Accepts Liquidated Damages Clauses of up to 15% For Cartel Infringements in Buyer’s Terms and Conditions
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On February 10, 2021, the FCJ declared liquidated damages clauses for cartel damages of up to 15% admissible in its sixth ruling in connection with the so-called “rail cartel”.[1]
FCJ Finds German Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Injuction for Abuse of Dominant Position
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On February 10, 2021 the FCJ annulled a decision by which the Schleswig Court of Appeal (“SCA”) had denied jurisdiction over the injunction claims of Hotel Wikingerhof’s (“Wikingerhof”) against the Dutch hotel booking platform operator Booking.com and remanded the case back to the SCA.[1]
CMA Digital Markets Strategy Refresh
By Cleary Gottlieb on
The CMA published a “refresh” of its Digital Markets Strategy (DMS II) on 9 February 2021. The first iteration (DMS I) was published in June 2019 but the CMA explains that “much has changed” in the interim, not least “significant developments in the political and regulatory landscape for digital markets.”
Volvo Secures Unconditional Clearance of Fuel-cell Joint Venture With Daimler
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On February 5, 2021, the Commission unconditionally cleared the creation of a joint venture (“JV”) between the Volvo Group (“Volvo”) and Daimler Truck AG (“Daimler”).[1] The JV will be active in the relatively novel, but rapidly evolving, hydrogen fuel-cell technology sector, which promises a “green” future in particular for transport.[2]
The Council of State Partially Reinstates an ICA Decision Fining Railway Companies for Dilatory Tactics
By Cleary Gottlieb on
In a judgment issued on February 2, 2021,[1] the Council of State confirmed that Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A. (the Italian railway network manager, “RFI”) and Trenitalia S.p.A. (an Italian railway transport operator, “Trenitalia”) abused market dominance by engaging in dilatory tactics in the context of proceedings with the competent authorities, thus hindering access of a new entrant, Arenaways S.p.A. (“Arenaways”), to the railway passenger transport sector.
The Council of State Partially Reinstates an ICA Decision Fining Railway Companies for Dilatory Tactics
By Cleary Gottlieb on
In a judgment issued on February 2, 2021,[1] the Council of State confirmed that Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A. (the Italian railway network manager, “RFI”) and Trenitalia S.p.A. (an Italian railway transport operator, “Trenitalia”) abused market dominance by engaging in dilatory tactics in the context of proceedings with the competent authorities, thus hindering access of a new entrant, Arenaways S.p.A. (“Arenaways”), to the railway passenger transport sector.
Phones4U (In Administration) v. EE, Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Vodafone, Telefonica and Telefonica O2
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On 2 February 2021, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by several mobile network operators (MNOs) to overturn disclosure orders that the MNOs’ executives’ personal devices and communications be examined by independent IT experts. Phones4U entered administration in 2014, following the termination of its contracts with several important commercial partners, including the defendant MNOs, from January 2013 onwards.
Hanover Court Dismissed Claims in Sugar Cartels for Lack of Standing
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On February 1, 2021, the Hanover Regional Court dismissed a claim brought by special purpose vehicle Retail Cartel Damage Claims SA (“CDC”) against sugar manufacturers Nordzucker AG, Südzucker AG and Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG, on the basis that the CDC had no standing to sue.[1]