On March 21, 2019, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s dismissal of the action lodged by Eco-Bat, a British lead recycling company, against the Commission decision imposing a €32.7 million fine in the Car Battery Recycling cartel case.[1]
Credit Agricole, JPMorgan Chase Lose Fight Against EU Releasing EIRD Decision
On March 21, 2019, the Court of Justice issued two orders dismissing Crédit Agricole’s and JPMorgan Chase’s applications for interim measures requested to prevent the Commission from publishing its decision in the EIRD cartel case.[1] The parties had appealed an order issued in October 2018 by the General Court,[2] which rejected the parties’ claims that the Commission should not be allowed to publish its decision on the cartel case while a court appeal against its publication is pending.
The Commission Publishes a Paper on EU Industrial Policy After Siemens/Alstom
In a March 18, 2019 paper entitled “EU industrial policy after Siemens/Alstom: Finding a New Balance Between Openness and Protection,” the Commission’s think tank, the European Political Strategy Centre, responds to the “significant backlash against EU competition policy” stemming from its prohibition of the Siemens/Alstom merger in February (reported in the EU Competition Law Newsletter of February 2019).[1]
10th Anniversary of the French Competition Authority – Results and Prospects
On March 5, 2019, the French Competition Authority celebrated its 10 years of existence. The President of the Competition Authority listed her priorities for the coming years, which include the retail sector and purchasing alliances, digital economy, “predatory” acquisitions and reflection on ex post control, as well as the labour market and labour collective agreements.
The Commission Sends its First Statement of Objects for an Alleged Breach of Merger Commitments
On July 2, 2014, the Commission conditionally cleared Telefónica Deutschland’s acquisition of E-plus, KPN’s German mobile telecommunications business, which combined the third and fourth largest mobile network operators in Germany. The acquisition was characterized as a 4-to-3 merger resulting in three mobile operators of a similar size.[1]
European Court of Human Rights Rules on the Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Cartels Cases
On February 14, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) found in SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, that the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court had not violated SA-Capital’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by partially relying on hearsay evidence in finding the existence and the scope of a cartel.[1] In particular, given the evidentiary complexity of cartel infringements, the ECtHR concluded that national competition authorities may use hearsay to the extent their findings do not solely depend on it.[2]
The General Court Orders the Commission To Pay Damages for Interest on a Paid, but Subsequently Annulled, Cartels Fine
On February 12, 2019, the General Court ordered the Commission to pay Printeos €0.18 million in interest on a previously paid cartel fine that was subsequently repealed by the General Court.[1]
Prohibition of Siemens/Alstom Triggers Debate About Far-reaching Changes to EU Merger Control
On February 6, 2019, the Commission[1] prohibited the then-proposed combination of Siemens AG’s (“Siemens”) mobility business and Alstom S.A. (“Alstom”) which put an end to the parties’ ambition of creating a European Champion in the rail industry.[2] The Financial Times called this Phase 2 investigation “one of the most important test cases for the commission since it assumed powers to vet EU mergers in 1989.”[3]
Mr David Henry v Office of Communications
On 6 February 2019, the CAT ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review Ofcom’s decision to approve the BBC’s
Advocate General Wahl Provides Guidance on “Unforseeable Circumstances or Force Majeure” in RF v. Commission
On January 24, 2019, Advocate General Wahl issued an opinion in a Polish company’s (“RF”) appeal before the Court of Justice and provided guidance on “unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure” in the context of a failure to comply with the time limit for lodging an application before the General Court.[1]