On 25 February 2020, the High Court handed down its judgment in a preliminary issue relating to limitation in a
FCO Has No Objections to Agricultural Online Trading Platform
On February 5, 2020, the FCO announced that it has no competitive concerns regarding the launch of the agricultural online trading platform operated by unamera GmbH (“Unamera”).[1] The FCO pointed out that while digital platforms can make trading much more efficient, it must be ensured that they must not restrict competition: Digital platforms must not be subject to price-fixing agreements, they must be non-discriminatory and there must not be excessive transparency.
Generics UK: The Court of Justice Issues Judgment on the Application of EU Competition Law to Pharmaceutical Reverse-payment Settlements
On Janaury 30, 2020, the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) issued a potentially far-reaching preliminary ruling in response to a May 2018 preliminary reference made by the U.K. Competition Appeals Tribunal (the “CAT”).[1]
The French Cour de Cassation Annuls the Paris Court of Appeal’s Judgment in the Interbank Fees Case for the Second Time
On January 29, 2020, the Cour de Cassation annulled the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal in the interbank fees case for interpreting the concept of restriction by object too broadly. The Cour de Cassation noted that only coordination practices that harm competition to a sufficient degree may be qualified as restrictions by object. Absent a clearly established anticompetitive object, likely anticompetitive effects must be proven to establish an infringement of Articles 101(1) TFEU and L. 420-1 of the French Commercial Code.
The ICA Imposes a €228 Million Fine for an Alleged Cartels Between Telecom Operators With Regard to the Switch From 28-Day to Monthly Billing
On January 28, 2020, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) issued a decision finding that four telecom operators, namely Fastweb S.p.A. (“Fastweb”), Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“TIM” or “Telecom”), Vodafone Italia S.p.A. (“Vodafone”) and Wind Tre S.p.A. (“Wind Tre”) (together, the “Operators”), participated in a cartel aimed at coordinating their commercial strategies, with a view to keeping prices high during the transition from four-week (28 days) billing to monthly billing (so-called repricing), thus impeding competition and limiting the risk of customers migrating to other competitors.[1]
The Council of State Confirms the Annulment of an ICA Decision on an Alleged Cartels in the Reinforcing Steel Bars Sector
On January 21, 2020, the Council of State confirmed the annulment of a 2017 ICA decision sanctioning a cartel between manufacturers of reinforcing steel bars (rebars) and welded wire mesh.[1] In particular, the ICA fined eight companies (namely, Feralpi Siderurgica S.p.A., Ori Martin Acciaieria e Ferriera di Brescia S.p.A., Industrie Riunite Odolesi I.R.O. S.p.A., Riva Acciaio S.p.A., Ferriere Nord S.p.A. and Fin. Fer S.p.A., Stefana S.p.A., Ferriera Valsabbia S.p.A. and Alfa Acciai S.p.A., together the “Manufacturers”) in an amount in excess of €140 million for allegedly coordinating their commercial strategies between 2010 and 2016, by fixing prices and exchanging sensitive information (among other things through the trade association Nuovo Campsider, “NC”).[2] The Council of State, fully upholding the TAR Lazio’s reasoning at first instance,[3] held that the appeal lodged by the ICA was unfounded on two fronts.
FCO Imposes Further Cartels Fines
On December 19, 2019, the FCO imposed fines of €195,000 on four German suppliers of liquid gas for geographic market sharing between 2006 and 2016.[1] In setting the fines, the FCO notably considered the low impact of the cartel arrangements due to the suppliers’ small market shares.
The Council of State Reiterates the Principle That Evidence Produced in Criminal Proceedings May Be Used by the ICA To Demonstrate an Anticompetitive Infringement
On January 10, 2020, the Council of State rejected the appeals brought against two judgments issued by the TAR Lazio in 2016, which upheld an ICA decision finding an anticompetitive bid rigging agreement in the railway transportation sector.[1] In particular, in 2015 the ICA found that 12 companies active in the railway industry had secretly colluded with a view systematically to allocating public procurement contracts covering the whole national territory, as well as by agreeing on their respective bids.[2]
The Council of State Annuls the Judgments of the Tar Lazio That Quashed an Ica Decision Fining Bid-rigging Practices in the Home Oxygen Therapy and Home Mechanical Ventilation Sectors
Background
The decision of the ICA
On December 21, 2016, the ICA concluded its investigation into certain anticompetitive practices allegedly implemented by major firms active in the provision of home oxygen therapy (“HO”) and home mechanical ventilation (“HMV”) services. According to the ICA, Linde Medicale S.r.l. (“Linde”), Medicair Italia S.r.l. (“Medicair”), Medigas Italia S.r.l. (“Medigas”), Sapio Life S.r.l. (“Sapio”), Vitalaire Italia S.p.A. (“Vitalaire”), Vivisol S.r.l. (“Vivisol”), Eubios S.r.l. (“Eubios”), Oxy Live S.r.l. (“Oxy”), Ossigas S.r.l. (“Ossigas”), Magaldi Life S.r.l. (“Magaldi”) and Ter.gas. S.r.l. (“Ter.gas.”) participated in three separate agreements affecting the outcome of open tender procedures for the provision of HMV in part of the Milan province, HMV and HO in the Marche region and HO in the Campania region, launched by ASL Milano 1, ASUR Marche and SORESA between 2012 and 2014.[1]
The Council of State Orders the ICA to Re-assess Alleged Anticompetitive Conduct in the Market for Maintenance Services for TIM’s Electronic Communications Networks
On December 23, 2019, the Council of State upheld the appeals brought by TIM and a number of firms active in the provision of corrective maintenance services for its electronic communications networks (the “Maintenance Firms”)against the judgments of the TAR Lazio that had confirmed the ICA’s decision finding an anticompetitive agreement in the market for the above-mentioned services.[1]