On 14 February 2019, the CAT rejected Mastercard’s attempts to use the evolution of the limitation period for damages claims in the CAT to exclude historic losses. The relevant claims were brought by Dixons and Europcar in reliance on the EC’s December 2007 decision against Mastercard.[1] The EC found that Mastercard had infringed Article 101 TFEU between 22 May 1992 and 19 December 2007 through its use of multi-lateral interchange fees for cross-border transactions made using Mastercard credit and debit cards.

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]

On February 14, 2019, the Commission published a decision, adopted on December 7, 2018,[1] accepting commitments offered by TenneT, an electricity transmission system operator (“TSO”), to remove restrictions on, and in the long term also to increase, the maximum capacity of the electricity interconnector between Germany and West Denmark (“the DE-DK1 interconnector”).

On 12 February 2019, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a fine of £200,000 on Electro Rent for gun-jumping.[1] This is the third occasion on which the CMA has penalised a company for breaching “standstill” or “hold-separate” obligations under the UK merger rules, and comes only one day after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the CMA’s first gun-jumping fine (imposed on Electro Rent in June 2018 for a separate infringement).[2] The CMA has shown increased readiness to penalise companies for breaching procedural rules, in particular in relation to merger proceedings, consistent with recent action by the European Commission (EC) and national agencies in the EU. The CAT’s judgment strongly endorses the CMA’s approach: “[i]t is a matter of public importance that the merger control process, and the duties it creates, are strictly and conscientiously, observed.”[3]

On February 6, 2019, the German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) prohibited Facebook’s practice of collecting and processing user data from Facebook’s own services as well as from third-party services without users’ freely given consent.[1] After an investigation of nearly three-years, the FCO found that this practice amounted to an exploitative abuse of a dominant position. For the first time, the FCO considered compliance with data protection rules in its abuse of dominance analysis.

On February 6, 2019—the same day the Siemens/Alstom decision was adopted—and again following a Phase II investigation, the Commission prohibited German rolled copper products manufacturer Wieland’s proposed acquisition of Aurubis’s rival business and of its 50% stake in the parties’ pre-rolled strip manufacturing joint-venture Schwermetall.[1]

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]