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]
The Council of State Orders the ICA to Refund the Fine Imposed on a Non-appellant Firm Following the Annulment of the Decision Finding an Infringement
The Council of State ordered the ICA to refund a cartel fine imposed on Hapag Lloyd Italy S.r.l. (“Hapag Lloyd”), after the underlying infringement decision was overturned based on appeals brought by other cartelists.[1]
The French Competition Authority (“FCA”) Fines the Four Historical Meal Voucher Issuers for Exchanging Commercially Sensitive Information and Locking Their Market
On December 17, 2019, the FCA issued fines of nearly 415 million euros to the four historical issuers of meal vouchers in France – namely Edenred France, Natixis Intertitres, Sodexo Pass France, and Up – as well as the Centrale de Règlement des Titres (“CRT”) for exchanging confidential commercial information and implementing market locking practices.
The French Competition Authority Fines Compote Manufacturers for Operating a Cartels
On December 17, 2019, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) fined six compote manufacturers for a total of 58.3 million euros for price fixing and market sharing practices. The fines were imposed on Materne(13.6 million euros), Andros (14.1 million euros), Conserves France (1.9 million euros), Délis SA (9.5 million euros), Charles Faraud (16.4 million euros) and Valade (2.8 million euros).
FCO Fines Steel Manufacturers for Price Fixing
On December 12, 2019, the FCO imposed fines of €646 million on steel manufacturers Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH, thyssenkrupp Steel Europe AG, voestalpine Grobblech GmbH and three individuals for price fixing.[1] A fourth manufacturer, Dillinger Hüttenwerke, was granted immunity from fines for cooperation under the leniency notice.
Otis: The Court of Justice Clarifies That Compensation for Loss Caused by a Cartels Is Not Limited to Market Participants
On December 12, 2019, the ECJ clarified in a preliminary ruling that entities which are not active as customers or suppliers in the markets affected by a cartel are entitled to claim damages under Article 101 TFEU.[1]
Council of State Reduces Fine in Cement Cartels Case
On November 29, 2019, the Council of State partially annulled[1] a judgment delivered by the TAR Lazio in 2018[2], which had upheld the ICA’s decision to impose on Holcim Italia S.p.A. (“Holcim”) a fine amounting to €2, 381,252 for participating in a price-fixing cartel concerning the Italian cement market.[3]
The Court Of Justice Partially Upheld ABB’s Claim That The General Court Had Exercised A Wrong Evidentiary Standard
On November 28, 2019, the Court of Justice partially granted the appeal brought by ABB and annulled a part of the Commission’s Power Cables decision.[1] In particular, the Court of Justice upheld ABB’s argument that the Commission did not adduce sufficient evidence that the cartel extended to accessories for power cables with voltages between 110 kV and 220 kV. The Court of Justice criticized the General Court for using a wrong evidentiary standard in reviewing the Commission’s decision.
The Court Of Justice Rejected Silec’s Argument That It Had Distanced Itself From The Cartels
On November 14, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal brought by Silec Cable.[1] In particular, the Court rejected Silec’s claims that the General Court had (i) incorrectly interpreted the content of its email communications as evidencing its involvement in the cartel; (ii) erroneously applied the legal test of public distancing from the cartel (i.e., Silec was not required to distance itself as it did not participate in any meetings); and (iii) wrongly denied them a ‘fringe player’ status, compared to another cartel participant, refusing to grant a fine reduction on this basis.
R (on behalf of British Gas Trading Limited) v The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority
On 13 November 2019, the High Court upheld a judicial review challenge to Ofgem’s decision on the implementation of a tariff cap and the calculation of the wholesale energy cost allowance for the first period of the price cap (Q1 2019). The CMA investigated the energy supply market in June 2016 and concluded that there was ineffective competition in the energy supply market, which had resulted in higher default tariffs being charged to customers.