Policy & Procedure

On October 1, 2024, amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union entered into effect, ushering in a significant reform to the European judiciary.[1]  As a result of the reform, the jurisdiction to issue preliminary rulings has been partially transferred from the Court of Justice to the General Court for cases falling exclusively within six well-established legal areas, including VAT, excise duties, and tariffs.  Conversely, the Court of Justice retains jurisdiction to issue preliminary rulings in competition law and other areas which routinely raise complex questions of principle and consistency.  The reform is designed to reduce the caseload of the Court of Justice, thereby allowing it to “focus to a greater extent on its role as the supreme and constitutional court of the European Union.”[2]

On September 14, 2024, China’s SAMR published streamlined notification and publicity forms for cases reviewed under its simplified merger review procedure (“Simple Cases”).  The revised forms will take effect as of October 12, 2024.

On September 9, 2024, Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank and former Italian Prime Minister, presented his report on the Future of European Competitiveness (the “Report”), with the objective to inform the work of the incoming Commission.  Featured in President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines issued in July,[2] and in several mission letters for the new Commissioners, the Report revived the debate concerning the competitiveness of EU companies in global markets.

In a decision dated July 24, 2024,[1] the Paris Court of Appeals granted a stay of execution in relation to a €2,700,000 fine imposed on the Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires (“ANIA”) by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) in the Bisphenol A case only considering the manifestly excessive consequences of such sanction in view of ANIA’s financial situation and without examining its merits.

UK Becomes Fourth Jurisdiction to Introduce Dedicated Digital Platform Regulation, with More Jurisdictions Likely to Follow

On 23 May, the UK Parliament passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Bill.  The new DMCC Act will bring about some of the most significant reforms to competition and consumer protection law in the UK in decades. Among other major reforms, it introduces a dedicated regime that provides for specific conduct rules for large digital platforms. The UK therefore becomes the fourth jurisdiction—after the EU with its Digital Market Act (DMA), Germany with its s.19A rules, and Japan with its new smartphone bill (also passed on 23 May)—to introduce rules that target a handful of the largest digital firms.[1]

On 21 May 2024, the UK Government published updated guidance on the application of the National Security and Investment Act (NSIA).  This includes:

On April 3, 2024, the European Commission (“Commission”) launched two in-depth investigations into tenders by Chinese solar photovoltaic suppliers under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”).[1]  The investigations relate to a public procurement procedure launched on September 27, 2023 by a Romanian contracting authority (Societatea Parc Fotovoltaic Rovinari Est S.A.) for the design, construction, and operation of a photovoltaic park with an installed capacity of 454.97 MW.[2]

On April 18, 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgement on the questions referred to it by the Prague Municipal Court in the Heureka v. Google case.[1]  Heureka Group (“Heureka”), a Czech comparison shopping service company (“CSS”) brought an action before the Municipal Court of Prague in the Czech Republic, seeking compensation from Google for the harm it allegedly suffered as a result of Google’s abusive behavior as part of the Google Shopping decision.  The referring court sought clarification about whether Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 (the “Damages Directive”) [2] and/or Article 102 TFEU[3] preclude the effects of a national law that requires parties seeking compensation for competition infringements to file suit within three years of the occurrence of the harm.  The Court of Justice ruled that Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness require the suspension of limitation periods during the Commission’s investigation.  The limitation period will only start running when the injured party knows the information necessary to bring its claim, which is presumed to be as of the date of the publication of the summary of the Commission’s infringement decision in the Official Journal of the EU.  Additionally, the injured party, Heureka in this instance, can then rely on the findings of a  Commission decision under appeal, as it is binding in nature, unless and until it has been annulled.