On February 23, 2021, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) made legally binding the commitments offered by Italgas Reti S.p.A. (“Italgas”), a company active in the gas distribution sector in the province of Venice, which belongs to the Italgas group (the “Decision”).[1] Italgas’ commitments were found to address adequately the ICA’s concerns that the company may have abused its dominant position in the local market for the provision of natural gas distribution services, in violation of Article 102 TFEU. According to the ICA’s decision to open the investigation, Italgas’ conduct was allegedly aimed at delaying the launch in 2018 of an open tender procedure for the provision of gas distribution services in a number of municipalities in the province of Venice (the “Tender”).
Epic Games v. Apple and Epic Games v. Google
On 22 February 2021, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that Epic Games (Epic) could not pursue a claim against Apple in the UK. It allowed some aspects of a similar claim brought by Epic against Google to be heard in the UK on the ground that permission is not required to serve claims in the CAT against the Irish anchor defendants.
The French Competition Authority Dismisses Interim Measures Against French Electricity Supplier EDF
On February 18, 2021, the FCA announced that it had denied interim measures requested by Plüm Energie, a competing electricity supplier, to prevent Électricité de France (“EDF”) from allegedly abusing its dominant position in the French market for the supply of electricity.
Preventx v. Royal Mail Group
On 11 February 2021, the High Court issued a consent order dismissing Preventx’s abuse of dominance claim against Royal Mail
The Commission Accepts Commitments Offered by Aspen in Its First Decision on Excessive Pricing in the Pharmaceutical Sector
On February 10, 2021, the Commission accepted commitments offered by South African pharmaceutical company Aspen and ended one of its rare investigations into excessive pricing (and reportedly the first in the pharmaceutical sector).[1] The decision provides guidance on how the Commission evaluates excessive pricing of off-patent medicines and how to remedy potential concerns.
FCJ Finds German Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Injuction for Abuse of Dominant Position
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]
The Council of State Partially Reinstates an ICA Decision Fining Railway Companies for Dilatory Tactics
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
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.
CMA v Flynn Pharma Ltd and Pfizer Inc.
On 27 January 2021, the Supreme Court announced that, on 17 December 2020, it granted Flynn Pharma and Pfizer permission to appeal against a May 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal by the CMA against a costs ruling made by the CAT.
The French Cour de Cassation Holds That Legal Privilege Applies to All Attorney-client Communications Relating to the Exercise of the Rights of Defence—Even Those Unrelated to the Antitrust Case in Relation to Which the Dawn Raids Are Carried Out
On January 20, 2021, the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de cassation ruled that none of the attorney-client communications relating to the exercise of the client’s rights of defence could be seized during dawn raids, even those that were not related to the antitrust case in relation to which the dawn raids were carried out.