On June 19, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal against a General Court order rejecting an appeal filed by RF, a Polish transportation company based in Gdynia, a city on the Baltic sea coast.[1] The General Court had rejected RF’s appeal because the original, signed version reached the General Court’s premises after the deadline to file an appeal. The General Court concluded that RF’s failure to meet the deadline due to a postal delay did not amount to an unforeseeable event or force majeure, which would have allowed for its acceptance, notwithstanding its late arrival in Luxembourg.

In June 2019, the CMA published its Merger Remedy Evaluations Report (the Report) – the latest in a series of case evaluations conducted to develop the CMA’s expertise, policy, and practice on merger remedies. The Report notes that its findings will be “used to inform the way in which the CMA approaches remedy design and implementation in subsequent cases.” The Report contains useful guidance for parties on the types of remedies that the CMA is prepared to accept or may require.

On June 14, 2019, the European Council adopted the “Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services” (the “Regulation”).[1] The Regulation seeks to address a range of issues in online search and intermediation platform-to-business relationships. It is the first piece of EU legislation to do so.

In a ruling of June 13, 2019, the French Supreme Court annulled the November 8, 2017 order of the Paris Court of Appeals that confirmed the validity of the search warrants authorizing the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) to carry out dawn raids at Whirlpool France’s premises.[1]

On June 11, 2019, the Commission prohibited the then-proposed joint venture between Tata Steel and Thyssenkrupp as the parties failed to provide commitments that fully addressed the Commission’s concerns.[1] In Thyssenkrupp’s view, offering commitments would have “adversely affected the intended synergies of the merger to such extent that the economic logic of the joint venture would no longer be valid.”[2]

On June 11, 2019, Nustay, a Danish online booking agency, filed a complaint with the Commission against Expedia and Booking.com, alleging a breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The complaint centers on parity clauses in online hotel booking. In 2015, both Expedia and Booking.com agreed with the Danish Competition Authority to remove wide price-parity clauses from their contracts with hotels.[1] Nustay alleges that these two companies have de facto re-introduced these clauses through certain commercial practices.

On June 7, 2019, the TAR Lazio rejected the appeal filed by Società Cooperativa Taxi Torino (“Taxi Torino”) against the interim measures adopted by the ICA on November 29, 2018, in an investigation concerning an alleged abuse in the market for taxi demand management services in Turin.[1]

On June 4, 2019, the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals (“DCA”) annulled the FCO’s 2015 decision prohibiting hotel booking platform operator Booking Holdings (“Booking.com”) from using narrow most favored nation (“MFN”) clauses.[1] The DCA’s decision aligns the German position with that of other European national competition authorities (“NCAs”). However, new causes of divergence—stemming from legislative interventions—are already emerging.

On June 4, 2019, the TAR Lazio upheld a decision issued by the ICA in 2018, which had fined the Italian Football Federation (“FIGC”) for an anticompetitive agreement, consisting of the FIGC’s decision to limit access to the market for professional services provided by sports directors, sport management assistants, talent scouts and match analysts.[1]