On September 13, 2022, the ICA closed an investigation into an alleged abuse of dominance in the domestic market for the management of the recycling of polyethylene (“PE”) goods by the POLIECO consortium (“POLIECO”), the incumbent operator for end-of-life management of PE goods on behalf of producers and users, by accepting and making binding the commitments offered by POLIECO.[1]
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 August 2022 set aside a £17.9 million fine against price comparison website Compare The Market, criticising the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) legal and evidential assessment of the case. The CAT found that the CMA’s “anecdotal evidence”[1] failed to prove that Compare The Market kept home insurance premiums artificially high by using most favoured nation clauses (MFNs) in its contracts with insurance providers. The CMA has said it is disappointed with the CAT’s ruling and is considering its options, including a potential appeal.
The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) last week fined pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Flynn £63 million and £6.7 million for engaging in excessive pricing. In the CMA’s view, the companies charged unfairly high prices for Phenytoin capsules, a genericised anti-epilepsy drug, in violation of competition law.
On July 14, 2022, Advocate General Rantos delivered his opinion in Unilever on two important questions referred to the Court of Justice:[1] (i) whether companies linked by contractual ties could constitute a “single economic unit”; and (ii) whether the Court of Justice’s ruling in Intel, that antitrust agencies must examine evidence put forward by the defendant that conduct is not capable of foreclosing equally efficient competitors, applies to practices beyond the exclusivity rebates considered in Intel.[2]
On July 14, 2022, the Commission invited comments on Amazon’s proposed commitments, offered under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, in two investigations concerning practices that allegedly advantaged its own services on its online marketplace, contrary to Article 102 TFEU. The invitation for comments is open until September 9, 2022.
On July 12, 2022, the Commission fined metal packaging producers Crown and Silgan €31.5m for breaching Article 101 TFEU by exchanging sensitive information and coordinating their commercial strategies for the sale of metal cans and closures in Germany over a three-year period.[1] The products concerned were metal lids for glass jars, coated with lacquers containing bisphenol A (“BPA”) or BPA-free lacquers and metal cans coated with BPA-free lacquers. These products were predominantly used to package foods, such as vegetables, fruit, meat, and fish.
On July 7, 2022, Advocate General Rantos delivered his Opinion in Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission, Lithuanian Railways’ appeal against a General Court judgment partially upholding a decision by the Commission finding that it had infringed Article 102 TFEU by removing 19 km of train tracks.[1] The Commission concluded that this conduct prevented a major customer from switching to Latvian Railways’ rival transportation services.
On July 1, 2022, the Conseil d’Etat (the French administrative supreme court) ruled[1] that it had no jurisdiction to annul a decision of the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) rejecting commitments offered by the group Sony (“Sony”) to end competition proceedings and referring the case back for further investigation.[2]
On June 21, 2022, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) closed its investigation pursuant to Article 102 TFEU into the conduct of the incumbent providers of the local public transport service by road in the Tuscany Region (the “Region”), which jointly formed the ONE Scarl consortium (“ONE”).
On June 20, 2022, the Commission opened a formal investigation into Vifor Pharma for the possible anticompetitive disparagement of a rival’s iron medicine.[1] Although the Commission launched a disparagement investigation last year,[2] this is the first time that it opens an investigation based exclusively on a disparagement theory of harm, and in relation to two originator products at that.[3]