EU Competition Law Newsletter

Below are links to EU Competition Law Newsletters that Cleary publishes each month.


2019

November

Highlights


Commission Opens Public Consultation On The Horizontal Block Exemption Regulations

  • On November 6, 2019, the Commission published a public consultation seeking input on the amendment of the Horizontal Block Exemption Regulations (“Horizontal BERs”), which are set to expire on December 31, 2022, and of the Horizontal Guidelines. Interested parties were given until February 12, 2020 to comment on the reform of these important instruments. The consultation is part of a wider Commission evaluation to determine whether the rules should be updated to better reflect the current economy and provide clearer guidance.

    Click here to read more.

The General Court Dismisses Campine’s Appeal Against Buyer-Cartel Fine

  • On November 7, 2019, the General Court dismissed an appeal brought by Campine against an €8.16 million fine imposed by the Commission for its participation in the battery recycling purchasing cartel. Campine sought annulment of the fine, and challenged in particular the 10% increase in the fine that the Commission imposed on account of it being a purchasing cartel. The judgment is notable for the broad discretion it affords the Commission when imposing fines for infringements in cases such as purchasing cartels that do not fit easily within the standard “value of sales” methodology in its Fining Guidelines.

    Click here to read more.

News


Commission Updates

  • Commission Approves The Acquisition of Bonnier By Telia Subject To Behavioral Commitments

On November 12, 2019, the Commission cleared the proposed acquisition of Bonnier Broadcasting Holding AB, a TV broadcasting company primarily active in Sweden and Finland, by Telia Company AB, a telecommunications operator in the Nordic region.

Click here to read more.

  • Commission Investigates Retail Grocery Sector In France

November 3, 2019, the Commission opened a formal investigation of potential anticompetitive coordination between two French supermarket chains, Casino and Intermarché. The Commission suspects that the parties’ 2014 joint purchasing alliance, Intermarché-Casino Achats, might have led to them colluding in certain downstream markets, in particular on the development of shop networks and consumer pricing.

Click here to read more. 

Court Updates


  • The Court Of Justice Issues Judgments In Four Power Cables Cases

In November 2019, the Court of Justice issued judgments in four cases arising out of the Commission’s 2014 decision in Power Cables. In the decision, the Commission found several European, Japanese, and Korean high-voltage power cables producers to have engaged in a cartel and imposed fines totaling €302 million. The scope of the infringement included both the power cables and their accessories. Most of the addressees challenged the decision in the General Court, in each case unsuccessfully, and subsequently in the Court of Justice. This month, the Court of Justice rendered judgments on the appeals filed by ABB, Silec, Brugg Kabel, and LS Cable, partially upholding ABB’s appeal while dismissing the other three appeals.

Click here to read more.

  • The Court Of Justice Partially Upheld ABB’s Claim That The General Court Had Exercised A Wrong Evidentiary Standard

On November 28, 2019, the Court of Justice partially granted the appeal brought by ABB Ltd and ABB AB (“ABB”) and annulled a part of the Commission’s Power Cables decision. In particular, the Court of Justice upheld ABB’s argument that the Commission did not adduce sufficient evidence that the cartel extended to accessories for power cables with voltages between 110 kV and 220 kV. The Court of Justice criticized the General Court for using a wrong evidentiary standard in reviewing the Commission’s decision.

Click here to read more.

  • The Court Of Justice Rejected Silec’s Argument That It Had Distanced Itself From The Cartel

On November 14, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal brought by Silec Cable (“Silec”). In particular, the Court rejected Silec’s claims that the General Court had (i) incorrectly interpreted the content of its email communications as evidencing its involvement in the cartel; (ii) erroneously applied the legal test of public distancing from the cartel (i.e., Silec was not required to distance itself as it did not participate in any meetings); and (iii) wrongly denied them a ‘fringe player’ status, compared to another cartel participant, refusing to grant a fine reduction on this basis.

Click here to read more.

Please click here to read the complete Newsletter.


October

August/September

July

June

May 

April

March  

February 

January


2018

December

November

October


Quarterly Reports

2018

EU Competition Report Q3

EU Competition Report Q2

EU Competition Report Q1


2017

EU Competition Report Q4

EU Competition Report Q3

EU Competition Report Q2

EU Competition Report Q1


2016

EU Competition Report Q4

EU Competition Report Q3

EU Competition Report Q2

EU Competition Report Q1


2015

EU Competition Report Q4

EU Competition Report Q3

EU Competition Report Q2

EU Competition Report Q1


2014

EU Competition Report Q4

EU Competition Report Q3


2013

EU Competition Report Q2 


2012

EU Competition Report Q1


2011

EU Competition Report Q4 

EU Competition Report Q3 

EU Competition Report Q1


2010

EU Competition Report Q1

 

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Read More