On September 28, 2020, the Council of State[1] dismissed the appeal brought by Buzzi Unicem S.p.A. (“Buzzi”) for the revocation of a judgment previously delivered by the same court, which upheld the lower court’s ruling as well as an ICA decision fining an alleged cartel in the cement sector.[2] Buzzi challenged the judgment before the Council of State on grounds of error of fact.[3]
The Court of Justice Rejects Prysmian’s Appeal in Line With Its Prior Judgments on the Power Cables Cartels
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 24, 2020, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal brought by the Italian cable producer Prysmian against a €104.6 million fine imposed by the Commission for its participation in the Power Cables cartel.[1]
FCJ Strikes Down Passing-on Defense When Damages Are Spread Across Many Consumers
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 23, 2020, the FCJ overturned a judgement by the DCA in which the Essen Transportation Authority brought a follow-on damages action against members of the so-called Rail Cartel (“Schienenkartell”).[1] It referred the case back to the DCA and provided further guidance to the DCA in relation to the applicable burden of proof as well as the scope of the passing-on defense.
FCJ Clarifies Scope of Binding Effect of Cartels Settlement Decisions and Confirms Existence of Presumption of Damages
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 23, 2020, the FCJ handed down its much anticipated first judgment in relation to damages claims resulting from the trucks cartel and provided helpful clarifications on some key questions regarding cartel follow-on damages actions.[1]
Court Denies Spanish NCA Status as “Court or Tribunal” for Making Preliminary References (Anesco)
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 16, 2020, the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of the concept of “court or tribunal” within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU.[1] The Court of Justice held the reference for a preliminary ruling inadmissible, for lack of the referring Spanish competition authority (“CNMC”) constituting a “court or tribunal” for the purpose of Article 267 TFEU.
The French Cour de Cassation Upholds the Paris Court of Appeals’ Judgment in the TDF Abuse of Dominance Case
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 16, 2020, the French Cour de cassation upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ judgment, which had largely confirmed the French Competition Authority’s (the “FCA”) decision in the TDF case.
The Cour de Cassation Quashes the Paris Court of Appeals’ Decision in the SFR/Orange Case on the Fixed Telephony Market for Secondary Homes for the Second Time
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 16, 2020, the French Cour de cassation annulled a judgment of the Paris Court of Appeals for the second time in the saga between SFR and Orange. While the Cour de cassation confirmed the existence of a relevant market for fixed telephony for secondary homes, on which Orange is dominant, it ruled that the Paris Court of Appeals had failed to properly assess Orange’s allegedly abusive conduct.
The French Competition Authority Reserves the Right To Refer to the European Commission Transactions That Do Not Reach the National Notification Threshold
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 15, 2020, Margaret Vestager announced that the European Commission would, as of mid-2021, accept referrals from national competition authorities for transactions that do not reach any national notification thresholds under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (“Article 22”).[1] This provision enables a national competition authority to request that the European Commission examine a transaction that does not meet the European Union notification thresholds, but would affect trade between Member States and threaten to significantly affect competition.
The ICA Fines Several Gas Operators at National Level for Failure To Notify a Concentration
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 15, 2020, the ICA imposed total fines of approximately €150,000 on Acea S.p.A. (“Acea”), Mediterranea Energia Soc. Cons. a r.l. (“Mediterranea”) and Alma C.I.S. S.r.l. (“Alma” and, together with Acea and Mediterranea, the “Parties”)[1] for failure to notify their acquisition of joint control over Pescara Distribuzione Gas S.r.l. (“Pescara Distribuzione”)[2] before implementing the transaction, in violation of Article 16(1) of Italian Law No. 287/90.[3]
ICA Fines Radio Taxi Companies for an Anticompetitive Agreement in the Market for the Collection and Sorting of Orders for Taxi Services in Naples
By Cleary Gottlieb on
On September 15, 2020, the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) imposed fines on Consortaxi, Taxi Napoli, Radio Taxi Partenope and Desa Radiotaxi (collectively, the “Radio Taxi Companies”) for entering into an anticompetitive agreement in the market for the collection and sorting of orders for taxi services in Naples, in violation of Article 101 of the TFEU (the “Decision”).[1] The Decision was taken after a series of other ICA decisions aimed at investigating and preventing anticompetitive practices of radio taxi companies foreclosing the entry of competing platforms in the market for the collection and sorting of orders for taxi services in other municipalities in Italy.[2]