On May 12, 2020, the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeals found drugstore chain Anton Schlecker e.K. i.I.’s (“Schlecker”) insolvency estate was not entitled to cartel follow-on damages.[1] In the Court of Appeals’ view, Arndt Geiwitz, Schlecker’s insolvency receiver acting on behalf of the estate, did not prove the estate incurred damages as a result of the cartel’s information exchange.
The Italian Supreme Court Rules on a Follow-on Action Regarding Telecom Italia’s Alleged Abuse on the Market for Wholesale Termination Services
On April 3, 2020, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed a judgment of the Milan Court of Appeal, which had upheld the damages claim of Brennercom S.p.A. (“Brennercom”) against Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“Tim”).[1]
The Italian Supreme Court Rules Again on Limitation Periods in an A357 Follow-on Action
On April 3, 2020, the Italian Supreme Court upheld the Milan Court of Appeal’s judgment that had dismissed the follow-on damages claim brought by Uno Communications S.p.A. (“Uno”) against Telecom Italia S.p.A. and TIM Italia S.p.A. (“Telecom”), concerning the conduct investigated and fined by the ICA in Case A537.[1]
Ds Smith Paper Limited and Others v Man SE and Others
On 2 April 2020, the CAT published a High Court order dated 21 January 2020, transferring to the CAT a
Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and Others
On 1 April 2020, the CAT published a summary of an application to commence collective proceedings under section 47B of
Iiyama (UK) Limited and Others V Samsung Electronics Co. Limited and Others (LCD Cartels)
On 4 March 2020, the CAT ordered that the damages claim brought by Iiyama against Samsung in relation to the
SP Power Systems and Others V Prysmian Spa and Others, National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc V ABB Ltd and Others (Power Cables Cartels)
On 28 February 2020, the High Court handed down an order transferring two damages claims for breaches of Article 101
The Italian Supreme Court Rules on Limitation Periods and Evidentiary Value of Commitment Decisions in Follow-on Actions
On February 27, 2020, the Italian Supreme Court fully upheld a judgment of the Milan Court of Appeals, which had dismissed the damages claim of Uno Communications S.p.A. (“UNO”) against Vodafone Italia S.p.A. (“Vodafone”).[1]
The Court of Rome Asks for ICA’s Assistance With Quantification of Damages in Follow-on Case
On February 26, 2020, the Court of Rome issued a non-final judgment in an action for damages brought by Siportal S.r.l. (“Siportal”) against Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“TIM”) in follow-on litigation for an alleged abuse of dominance in the provision of wholesale access services,[1] which had been found and fined by ICA in 2013. The Court rejected TIM’s claim that the limitation period had expired, found that TIM had committed an abuse against Siportal, and asked the ICA to assist the Court with respect to the determination of the quantum of damages pursuant to Article 14(3) of Legislative Decree No. 3/2017.[2]
Paris Commercial Court dismisses follow-on damage claim in the Dairy Products case
On February 20, 2020, the Paris Commercial Court dismissed the damages claim brought by various entities of Belgian retail group Louis Delhaize following the French Competition Authority’s 2015 sanction decision in the Dairy Products case.6[1]The Court considered that the claimants’ economic assessment of their harm was insufficiently substantiated, whereas the defendants were able to successfully raise the passing-on defense.