In a judgment dated October 19, 2021, the Cour de cassation quashed a Paris Court of Appeal’s judgment invalidating inspections carried out by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) at Swarovski France’s (“Swarovski”) headquarters in July 2019.[1] The judgment is in line with recent Cour de cassation rulings favorable to the FCA.

October 13, 2021 marked the end of Isabelle de Silva’s five-year term as President of the FCA.

The Commission is returning to the office; but not just to its own. It recently launched dawn raids in three separate investigations and warned of more to come after two years of inactivity in this regard. The COVID-19 pandemic made it impracticable for the Commission to conduct dawn raids, let alone coordinate in multiple countries at once. The receding pandemic, however, allows for a rise in dawn raids.

On October 11, 2021, the FCO published two new guidelines, the leniency guidelines and guidelines on the setting of antitrust fines.[1]  Both guidelines reflect revisions to the Act against Restraints of Competition (“ARC”) resulting from the 10th Amendment of the ARC earlier in 2021.[2]  While the leniency program was legally anchored only by the 10th Amendment of the ARC, the FCO’s new leniency guidelines largely correspond to the former guidelines as issued in 2000 and updated in 2006.  In contrast, the FCO’s new fining guidelines substantiate several important methodical changes introduced to the law by the 10th Amendment of the ARC and implement judicial practice which has in the past differed considerably from the FCO’s principles in some cases.

On October 6, 2021, the Court of Justice dismissed eight appeals[1] brought against the 2019 judgments of the General Court, upholding the classification of Spanish tax rules on the amortization of financial goodwill as State aid incompatible with the internal market. The judgments are noteworthy as the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, shed light on the interpretation of the notion of selectivity—one of the cumulative criteria required for a national measure to qualify as State aid contrary to EU law.

On October 6, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice handed down a landmark judgment concerning the issue of downward liability in antitrust follow-on damages claims.[1] While the parental (or upward) liability doctrine has long been established,[2] for the first time, the Court of Justice shed light on whether subsidiaries can be held liable for their parents’ antitrust infringements in both public and private enforcement contexts. The ruling answered this question affirmatively, so long as the subsidiary and the parent company form part of the same undertaking.

In a judgment delivered on October 5, 2021 (the “Judgment”),[1] the Italian Supreme Court held that the appeals filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Roche S.p.A. (“Roche”), as well as Novartis Farma S.p.A. and Novartis AG (“Novartis” and, together with Roche, the “Parties”), against a ruling issued in 2019 by the Council of State,[2] were inadmissible.