On July 30, 2019, the Milan Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) fully upheld a ruling of the Milan Court finding that Società per Azioni Servizi Aeroportuali (“SEA”) and Aeroporti di Roma (“ADR”) had put in place several anticompetitive practices in violation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.[1]
The Court of Justice in Tibor-trans Expands Forum Options for Cartels Damages Claimants
On July 29, 2019, the Court of Justice confirmed that the Hungarian courts had jurisdiction to rule on damages claims brought by Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. (“Tibor-Trans”), a Hungarian logistics company, against DAF Trucks N.V. (“DAF”), one of the members of the EU-wide trucks cartel.[1] The Court of Justice clarified that cartel victims may claim damages in any Member State affected by a cartel, even where they had no direct contractual relationship with the cartelists.
ICA Finds Milan Notarial Board Liable for Anticompetitive Conduct but Does Not Issue a Fine
On July 24, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) issued a decision[1] (the “Decision”) finding that the Milan Notarial Board had violated Article 2 of Law No. 287/90 (the “MNB”). According to the ICA, the MNB allegedly collected disaggregated data on the performance of notaries in the Milan district in order to monitor their economic activity and discourage aggressive competition. However, the anticompetitive use of the data stopped when the ICA started the proceedings and, thus, the cartel did not have any anticompetitive effect. As a consequence, the ICA did not impose a fine.
The ICA Imposed Fines of €287 Million on the Main Manufacturers of Corrugated Cardboard Sheets and Cases for Two Separate Cartels
On July 17, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) imposed fines in excess of €287 million on 23 companies for two distinct anticompetitive agreements in breach of Article 101 TFEU (the “Decision” and the “Infringements”, respectively).[1] According to the ICA, the two cartels were implemented in two different markets which were vertically related to each other, namely the upstream market for corrugated cardboard sheets (the “Sheets Cartel”) and the downstream market for corrugated cardboard cases (the “Cases Cartel”). The Infringements allegedly also involved the relevant trade association Gruppo Italiano Fabbricanti Cartone Ondulato (“GIFCO”).
The 2014 Ica Decision That Fined Novartis and Roche for an Anticompetitive Agreement Aimed at Creating an Artificial Differentiation Between Two Allegedly Equivalent Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Age-related Macular Degeneration, Is Upheld by a Final Ruling of the Council of State
On July 15, 2019, the Council of State rejected an appeal filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche LTD and Roche S.p.A. (“Roche”), as well as Novartis Farma S.p.A. and Novartis AG (“Novartis”; jointly, the “Parties”) against a judgment issued in 2014 by the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Latium (the “TAR Lazio”).[1] As a consequence, the 2014 decision by which the ICA fined the Parties approximately €180 million overall for a violation of Article 101 TFEU (the “Decision”)[2] became final. According to the Decision, the Parties colluded with a view to creating an artificial differentiation between two medicinal products that were equivalent for the treatment of eye diseases, in order to increase sales of the more expensive one.
The Paris Court of Appeals Rules That Undertakings May Challenge the Proportionality of Fines Imposed in Settlement Proceedings
On June 13, 2019, the Paris Court of Appeals ruled that an undertaking can challenge the proportionality of a fine set by the FCA within the range agreed with the Rapporteur Général during a settlement procedure.[1]
General Court Rejects Appeals In The Optical Disc Drive Cartels
On July 12, 2019, the General Court rejected five appeals against a 2015 Commission decision imposing a total fine of €116 million on five cartel participants for colluding to rig optical disc drive (“ODD”) procurement tenders organized by Dell and Hewlett-Packard (“HP”).[1] The judgment serves as a reminder of the discretion the Commission enjoys when imposing cartel fines, and the General Court’s tendency to defer to the Commission’s cartel policy.
The Council of State Grants the ICA’s Appeal and Reverses the Lower Court’s Ruling Annulling a 2015 Decision Concerning an Unlawful Concerted Practice in the Railways Supply Sector Among Suppliers of Goods and Electromechanical Services for the Railway Sector
On July 11, 2019, the Council of State set aside a judgment issued by the TAR Lazio in 2016,[1] which had annulled an ICA decision fining Firema S.p.A. (“Firema”) approximately €230,000 for its participation, together with 12 other undertakings, in a single and continuous infringement by object consisting of a secret concerted practice in the context of 24 tender procedures for the purchase of goods (mostly coils for electric traction motors) and electromechanical services (mostly repair and maintenance of those engines) for the railway sector called by awarding authority Trenitalia S.p.a.[2]
Court of Justice Annuls ICAP’s Cartels Fine Due to the Commission’s Failure to Sufficiently Explain Fine Calculation Methodology
On July 10, 2019, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s partial annulment of the Commission’s 2015 decision to fine the UK-based broker, ICAP, €14.9 million for facilitating a cartel in the Yen Interest Rate Derivatives (“YIRD”) market between 2007 and 2010, confirming that the Commission had failed to adequately explain its fine calculation.
The FCJ Quashes Two DCA Decisions Due to Procedural Errors
On June 21 and July 9, 2019, the FCJ annulled two judgments of the DCA relating to the cartels in the confectionary[1] and roasted coffee[2] sectors due to procedural flaws. In both cases, the DCA had previously increased cartel fines set by the FCO. The FCJ referred both cases back to another cartel division of the DCA for a new hearing and ruling. Whether this, however, will result in an actual reduction of the fines remains to be seen.