Abuse

On April 30, 2020,[1] the Council of State confirmed the annulment of a decision issued by the ICA in 2016,[2] which had fined the Italian National Lawyers’ Council (Consiglio Nazionale Forense, the “CNF”) for failure to comply with a 2014 infringement decision.[3]

The Judgment sheds light on the procedural rules the ICA should follow in proceedings regarding alleged failure to comply with previous infringement decisions.

On April 9, 2020, the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) imposed interim measures on Google following three complaints lodged in mid-November 2019 by publishers unions Syndicat des éditeurs de la presse magazine and Alliance de la presse d’information générale and news agency Agence France Presse (the “Decision”). The FCA found that interim measures were necessary to prevent a potential abuse of dominance in the French market for general online search services.[1]

On April 7, 2020, the FCA imposed a €900,000 fine on Pari Mutuel Urbain (“PMU”), the main French horse race betting group, for failing to separate the betting pools of its online and physical activities.[1] PMU had taken this commitment in 2014 in order to end an FCA investigation for a potential abuse of dominance.[2]

On March 16, 2020, the FCA imposed a €1.1 billion fine on Apple for entering in anticompetitive agreements with its distributors and abusing the situation of economic dependency of its network of Apple Premium Resellers, issuing by far its highest fine ever. The decision follows a lengthy investigation initiated in 2012, when the then-largest French Apple Premium Reseller eBizcuss accused Apple of abusing its dominant position.

On March 13, 2020, the Council of State rejected the appeal lodged by Aspen Pharma Trading Ltd., Aspen Italia s.r.l., Aspen Pharma Ireland Ltd., and Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Ltd. (together “Aspen”) against the judgment issued by the TAR Lazio on July 26, 2017,[1] which upheld the 2016 ICA decision to fine Aspen in an amount in excess of € 5 million for charging excessive prices in violation of Article 102(a) TFEU.[2]