Cleary Gottlieb senior attorney Philipp Kirst contributed the chapter “The application ratione temporis of the Directive’s provisions and conflicting limitation periods under national laws” to the Research Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law in the EU, published by Edward Elgar Publishing.
On August 30, 2022, the Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) published its Annual Report 2021/2022.[1] Andreas Mundt, the President of the FCO, pointed out two areas of the FCO’s focus: First, the collusion of undertakings under the guise of inflation and Russia’s war against Ukraine. Second, to use the flexibility of antitrust law to allow for a degree of cooperation that is necessary in times of crisis. Moreover, the FCO continues to pursue its digital agenda for the digital economy and the protection of consumer rights.
Last year we noted that U.S. antitrust enforcement was in a period of nearly unprecedented public attention and policy debate, and also that the Biden Administration seemed likely to launch significant new policy initiatives as the year progressed.
In the third episode of a three-part series on U.S. antitrust enforcement, host Nick Levy interviews Cleary Gottlieb colleagues Bruce Hoffman and Leah Brannon about the U.S. enforcement environment for Big Tech, the agencies’ application of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the prospects for legislative change.
On 10 November 2022, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) issued a preliminary ruling[1] on the interpretation of the disclosure obligation under the EU directive that harmonised national rules governing actions for damages for breaches of competition law in EU member states and the UK (the Damages Directive).[2]
On June 16, 2022, the Paris Court of Appeals (the “Court”) ruled that “decisions to protect the confidentiality of business secrets taken during the course of the investigation, which have not been challenged pursuant to Article R. 463-15 of the French Commercial Code, continue to bind the College when adopting and drafting the decision on the merits, otherwise such decisions would be deprived of any effectiveness” (the “Ruling”).[1]
On April 26, 2022, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed a judgment of the Milan Court of Appeal, which had upheld the damages claim brought by Teleunit S.p.A. (“Teleunit”) against Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“Tim”)[1].
On April 7, 2022, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his opinion on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 (the “Damages Directive”) and on the scope of its rules on evidence production.[1] The Advocate General called on the Court of Justice to allow national courts to require defendants to disclose evidence of a type that would require the defendant to compile or classify information rather than merely produce existing material.
The Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, Italy (the “TAR Lazio”), annulled a decision by which in 2020 the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) had imposed a fine on CTS Eventim-TicketOne Group (“TicketOne”) for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the Italian market for the sale of tickets for pop and rock music concerts.[1]
On March 25, 2022, the French Conseil constitutionnel[1] held that the provisions of Article L.470-2, paragraph VII of the French Commercial Code, which provide for the cumulative enforcement of penalties imposed on the same person for multiple breaches regarding restrictive trade practices, are in compliance with the French Constitution.