On December 11, 2018, the FCJ passed its long awaited judgment on the use of prima facie evidence in cartel damage proceedings.[1] In the context of damage claims resulting from the rail cartel, the FCJ found that plaintiffs can no longer rely on prima facie evidence alone to prove that a cartel caused them to suffer loss and damage. This marks a significant reversal of recent German case law.
DCA Confirms FCO’s Decision to Block CTS Eventim/Four Artists Merger
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On December 5, 2018, the DCA rejected CTS Eventim’s appeal of the FCO’s 2017 decision prohibiting CTS Eventim’s acquisition of Four Artists.[1]
FCJ Quashed Fining Decision Against LPG Cartels
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On October 9, 2018, the FCJ quashed the DCA decision that had increased the FCO’s fines on five members of the liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) cartel significantly.[1] The FCJ found that the DCA’s calculation of the fines was flawed and referred the case back to the DCA – providing guidance on how to assess the right basis for the fines.
The CNMC Closes an Abuse of Dominance Case against Oracle for the Second Time following a Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court Clarifying the Scope of Judicial Review of Competition Cases by Limiting Lower Court’s Ability to Substitute the CNMC’s Reasoning with the Court’s Own
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On April 10, 2018, the Spanish Supreme Court annulled a judgment of the Spanish High Court, finding an abuse of dominance in a case against Oracle where the Spanish Competition Authority (“CNMC”) had found no infringement.[1] The Supreme Court clarified the scope of whether it was appropriate for the High Court to impose its own reasoning on the CNMC by mandating that it accept the High Court’s view of the facts and law.
DCA Finally Publishes Rossmann Judgment That Significantly Increased Fine for Vertical Price Fixing
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On February 28, 2018, the DCA significantly increased the fine that the FCO had imposed on drug store chain Dirk Rossmann GmbH (“Rossmann”) nearly sixfold.[1] However, at the time, the DCA only issued a press release which left ample room for speculation about the precise reasoning behind the court’s decision to increase the fine. The DCA now published a non- confidential version of its judgment that provides further insights.