In a ruling dated December 2, 2021, the Paris Court of Appeals overturned a 2010 decision in which the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) had fined 11 major French banks for colluding on check handling fees, possibly bringing the 11-year saga to an end. The ruling confirms that the concept of by-object restriction should be interpreted restrictively, in line with a judgment issued by the French Cour de cassation in the same case in 2020.
On November 18, 2021, the Commission published its communication entitled “a competition policy fit for new challenges” (the “Communication”).[1] The Communication identifies several areas where an adjusted competition policy could help overcome new challenges the European economy is facing. In particular, the Communication discusses competition policy’s role in Europe’s economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, in supporting the European green[2] and digital transition,[3] and in strengthening the Single market’s resilience.
On November 10, 2021, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) issued a press release[1] indicating that it raided the premises of several companies in the food retail sector suspected of engaging in anticompetitive practices, as well as the homes of some employees.
On September 22, 2021, the Cour de cassation upheld the 2018 judgement of the Paris Court of Appeals[1] which had confirmed the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”)’s infringement findings nonetheless reducing the amount of the financial penalties imposed on 21 companies in 2015.[2] This ruling closes a 13-year saga and provides a deep-dive analysis into the FCA’s fine calculation methodology.
On September 6, 2021, the Council of State dismissed an appeal brought by the ICA[1] against a TAR Lazio judgment[2] that annulled an ICA decision[3] concerning the parent company – AIRI S.r.l.(the “Parent”) and its subsidiary Air Company S.r.l. (the “Subsidiary”, together, the “Parties”) – accused of participating in a cartel regarding helicopter transport services.
Four divisions of Mastercard are facing a UK claim from retailers AGDC Realisations, American Golf, and Victoria Plum, which has
Between August 18 and August 23, the Council of State rejected the separate appeals filed by Babcock Mission Critical Services International S.A. (“Babcock International”), Heliwest S.r.l. (“Heliwest”), Elitellina S.r.l. (“Elitellina”), Eliossola S.r.l. (“Eliossola”) and Associazione Elicotteristica Italiana (“AEI” and, jointly with Babcock International, Heliwest, Elitellina and Eliossola, the “Parties”) against judgments issued by the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio (“TAR Lazio”), which had confirmed a 2019 ICA decision.
On July 22, 2021, the TAR Lazio dismissed in full the applications filed by Coopservice s.coop.p.a. (“Coopservice”), Allsystem s.p.a. (“Allsystem”), Istituti di Vigilanza Riuniti s.p.a. (“IVRI”) and its parent company Biks Group s.p.a. (“Biks”), Italpol Vigilanza s.r.l. (“Italpol”) and its parent company MC Holding s.r.l. (“MC Holding”), as well as Sicuritalia s.p.a. (“Sicuritalia”) and its parent company Lomafin SGH s.p.a. (“Lomafin”; collectively, the “Parties”) for annulment of the 2019 decision adopted by the ICA in Case I821 (the “Decision”).[1]
On July 12, 2021, the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Latium (the “TAR Lazio”) annulled the overall €228 million fines imposed by the ICA on Fastweb S.p.A. (“Fastweb”), Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“TIM”), Vodafone Italia S.p.A. (“Vodafone”) and Wind Tre S.p.A. (“Wind Tre”; collectively, the “Operators”) for an alleged cartel aimed at coordinating pricing strategies in the transition from a 28-day to a monthly billing period (so-called repricing).[1]
In six judgments dated June 30 to July 1, 2021,[1] the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (the “TAR Lazio”) set aside an infringement decision issued by the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) against eleven Italian banks[2] and the Italian Banking Association (the “ABI”). The ICA decision concerned an alleged anticompetitive agreement aimed at coordinating business strategies in order to determine the remuneration model for the Sepa Compliant Electronic Database Alignment (“SEDA”) service.[3]