On October 29, 2021, the ICA decided to close the investigation into an alleged abuse of dominant position by Husky Injection Molding Systems (“Husky”), without finding any infringement.[1] The ICA found that the evidence collected during the investigation did not allow it to confirm the allegations put forward at the beginning of the proceedings (the “Decision”).
On 19 October 2021, the CAT published its judgment on the strike-out and collective proceedings order (CPO) applications in the claims brought by Mr. Justin Gutmann alleging abuse of dominance by London & South Eastern Railway Limited, First MTR South Western Trains Limited, and Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited.
On 19 October 2021, the CAT made an order permitting Regus Group Services Ltd and IWC plc to withdraw their
In a judgment dated October 19, 2021, the Cour de cassation quashed a Paris Court of Appeal’s judgment invalidating inspections carried out by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) at Swarovski France’s (“Swarovski”) headquarters in July 2019.[1] The judgment is in line with recent Cour de cassation rulings favorable to the FCA.
On October 12, 2021, the ICA closed an investigation against Google, due to the fact that, in June 2021, the European Commission (the “Commission”) opened an investigation having the same scope.[1]
The Commission is returning to the office; but not just to its own. It recently launched dawn raids in three separate investigations and warned of more to come after two years of inactivity in this regard. The COVID-19 pandemic made it impracticable for the Commission to conduct dawn raids, let alone coordinate in multiple countries at once. The receding pandemic, however, allows for a rise in dawn raids.
On October 6, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice handed down a landmark judgment concerning the issue of downward liability in antitrust follow-on damages claims.[1] While the parental (or upward) liability doctrine has long been established,[2] for the first time, the Court of Justice shed light on whether subsidiaries can be held liable for their parents’ antitrust infringements in both public and private enforcement contexts. The ruling answered this question affirmatively, so long as the subsidiary and the parent company form part of the same undertaking.
In a five-day session, between September 27, 2021 and October 2, 2021, the General Court of the European Union (the “General Court”) heard Google’s and the European Commission’s (the “Commission”) arguments in the Google Android case.
On September 21, 2021, the ICA accepted and made binding the commitments offered by the Italian National Association of Insurance Companies (the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici or “ANIA”) regarding the implementation of its “anti-fraud project” in life and non-life insurance (the “Project”).[1]
On September 30, 2021, the Paris Court of Appeals upheld the FCA’s decision of April 24, 2020 (the “Decision”) to dismiss Molotov’s complaint regarding certain practices allegedly carried out by the two main private free-to-air television broadcasters in France, TF1 and M6. The Court held that, in line with the FCA’s findings, neither the evidence on file nor that adduced by the complainant were sufficient to establish any of the alleged infringements.