Topics

On August 17, 2020, the General Court ordered the Commission to pay EUR 270,250 in recoverable costs to UPS.[1] UPS’ application for costs followed its successful 2017 action for annulment of the Commission’s January 30, 2013, veto of UPS’ takeover of TNT.[2]

In August 2020, the FCO published the results[1] of its investigation into the effect of narrow price parity clauses on online sales.  Narrow price parity clauses restrict suppliers from offering their products or services at lower prices or more favorable conditions in certain sales channels.  In contrast, wide price parity clauses restrict suppliers from offering their products or services at lower prices or with more favorable conditions anywhere else.

On July 29, 2020, the Monopolies Commission published its Biennial Report XXIII.  The Monopolies Commission makes three main recommendations to strengthen the German and European competition regimes.[1]

On 27 July 2020, the High Court dismissed an application by UBS AG to strike out or obtain summary judgment in relation to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC-R) claims alleging that UBS AG and other banks had colluded to manipulate the United States Dollar London Interbank Offered Rate (USD LIBOR) benchmark in breach of the Chapter 1 Prohibition and Article 101 TFEU. FDIC-R brought an action on 10 March 2017, more than six years after the conduct at issue.

On July 27, 2020, the TAR Lazio annulled an ICA decision of September 2019, which fined Com Metodi S.p.A. (“Com Metodi”), Sintesi S.p.A. (“Sintesi”), and Igeam S.r.l., Igeamed S.r.l. and Igeam Academy S.r.l. (jointly, “Igeam”) (together, the “Companies”) for participating in an alleged cartel which affected the outcome of the open tender procedure for the provision of integrated health and safety management services in the workplaces at Italian Public Administrations, launched by Consip S.p.A. (“Consip”) in December 2015 (the “SIC 4 Tender”).[1]

On July 27, 2020, the TAR Lazio delivered 15 judgments concerning the 2019  ICA decision, by which 19 companies were found liable for participating in a cartel aimed at rigging a tender procedure in the facility maintenance sector in Italy (the “Decision”).[1]

The TAR Lazio delivered two sets of rulings: on the one hand, it quashed the Decision with respect to three of the addressee companies;[2] on the other hand, with respect to the 12 other applicants, it upheld the finding of infringement, but ordered the ICA to re-determine the fines originally imposed on them.[3]

On July 24, 2020, the Council of State upheld three judgments issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (the “TAR Lazio”) in 2017,[1] which reduced by 60% the amount of the fines imposed by the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”)[2] in 2015 on three firms operating in the area of Belluno, in the Veneto Region (namely, Superbeton S.p.A., F.lli Romor S.r.l. and F.lli De Pra S.p.A., together the “Companies”). In contrast, the Council of State dismissed the cross-appeals submitted by the Companies that aimed to challenge the ICA’s finding of infringement.[3]