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 8 October 2021, the CAT made an order permitting St James Holdings Limited (St James Holdings) to
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.
On October 5, 2021, the Monopolies Commission published its Special Report on the draft Digital Markets Act (“DMA”)[1] welcoming many rules of the draft DMA but also proposing amendments.
On October 4, 2021, the Italian Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”)[1] confirmed a judgment of the Florence Court of Appeal, which had upheld the damages claim of Pace Strade s.r.l. (“Pace Strade”) against Toscana Energia S.p.A. (“Toscana Energia”).
In a five-day session, between September 27, 2021 and October 2, 2021, the General Court of the European Union (the “General Court”) heard Google’s and the European Commission’s (the “Commission”) arguments in the Google Android case.
The UK competition authorities, and the Competition and Markets Authority in particular, have broad powers to investigate markets as a whole and impose remedies without any finding of unlawful conduct. The use of these powers has fluctuated over time but is again increasing. Over the last year, the CMA has opened three market studies, investigating the markets for Music Streaming, Children’s Social Care, and Mobile Ecosystems.