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]
TAR Lazio Annuls ICA Decision on Agreement on Remuneration for Seda Service
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]
The Commission Re-adopts and Amends EIRD Cartels Decisions Against HSBC, Crédit Agricole, and JP Morgan Chase
On September 24, 2019, the General Court annulled a €33.6 million fine imposed by the Commission on HSBC for its participation in the Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (“EIRD”) cartel.[1] The General Court upheld the infringement finding, but annulled the fine because the Commission had failed to sufficiently explain its fine calculation methodology, as previously reported.[2]
ICA Accepts Commitments Offered by Parties To Alleged Anticompetitive Agreement in Scrap Automotive and Industrial Lead-acid Batteries Sector
On June 15, 2021, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) adopted a decision that made legally binding the commitments offered by certain companies active in the scrap lead-acid batteries sector, in the context of an investigation regarding the alleged coordination of their pricing behavior.[1] These commitments were found to adequately address the ICA’s concern that the companies and the collecting organizations they belonged to may have coordinated their behavior in violation of Article 101 TFEU.
The Battery Recycling Buyer Cartels: Recylex’s “Recycled Facts” Not Sufficient for Partial Immunity
The Optical Disk Drive Cartels (AG Pitruzzella): Violation of Defense Rights to No Avail for Fine Reduction
On June 3, 2021, Advocate General Pitruzzella delivered an Opinion in the Optical Disk Drives case, finding that the Commission breached the appellants’ rights of defense, but that the fines imposed should nevertheless stand.[1]
The Commission Re-adopts and Amends the YIRD Cartels Decision Against ICAP, Halving the Total Fine
On July 10, 2019, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s partial annulment of the Commission’s 2015 decision to fine ICAP c. €15 million for facilitating a cartel in the Yen Interest Rate Derivatives (“YIRD”) market between 2007 and 2010.[1]
The Council of State Confirms the ICA’s Assessment of the “Value of Sales” and the “Entry Fee” in Calculating the Fines for a Bid Rigging Case
Update on the Commission’s Anti-cartels Enforcement
On May 20, 2021, the Commission issued a decision fining several banks for participation in an alleged cartel in European government bonds (“EGB”) trading.[1] The Commission decision found that seven investment banks (Bank of America, Natixis, Nomura, UBS, UniCredit, RBS, and WestLB (now called Portigon)) participated in an alleged collusive scheme aimed at distorting competition in purchasing and trading EGBs.[2] EGBs are financial instruments issued on the primary market for the purposes of raising debt capital by the governments of the Eurozone Member States. Once bought by “primary dealers” in primary market auctions, EGBs are traded on the secondary market among investors and financial institutions.
The Council of State Confirms a TAR Lazio Judgment That Upheld an ICA Decision Concerning a Cartels in the Helicopter Transport Services
On May 6, 2021, the Council of State rejected the appeals lodged by Elifriulia S.r.l and Star Work Sky S.a.s. (the “Parties”)[1] against the TAR Lazio judgment[2] that upheld the 2019 ICA decision fining the Parties approximately €67 million for restrictive agreements concerning certain helicopter transport services.[3]