In its preliminary ruling in Skanska Industrial Solutions and Others[1], the Court of Justice has ruled on the fundamental question of who is liable to pay compensation in an action for damages for breach of Article 101 TFEU. Is the answer to be found in EU law or national law? Can the person liable to…
On 16 January 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU” or “Court”) dismissed the European Commission’s appeal against the annulment of its decision to prohibit the acquisition of TNT by UPS. The CJEU stressed the importance of respecting companies’ rights of defence as regards economic analysis and methodology used in merger control….
The European Court of Justice (CJEU) held recently in Apple Sales International v MJA acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com[1] that claims alleging abuse of a dominant position could come within the terms of a jurisdiction clause even where the clause did not expressly refer to claims based on competition law. Relevant Rules The rules…
On 19 April 2018, the Court of Justice (CJEU) issued an important ruling in the MEO case on the interpretation of Article 102(c) TFEU.[1] Article 102 prohibits, as incompatible with the EU’s internal market, any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position in so far as it may affect trade between Member…
In a judgment dated 5 February 2018, the General Court of the EU (the “General Court”) rejected the appeal by German retailer Edeka–Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring’s (“Edeka”) against a decision by the European Commission (the “Commission”) refusing Edeka’s application to obtain access to material classified by the Commission as confidential during its investigation into alleged manipulation of…
Most merger control regimes provide for so-called stand-still obligations, i.e. the parties cannot implement the transaction until the necessary merger clearances have been received from the relevant competition authorities. This means in particular that the acquiring company cannot starting controlling the target’s business prior to closing – no “gun jumping” is allowed. Competition authorities have…
Background This case concerns a dispute between Coty Germany GmbH, a supplier of luxury cosmetic products, and Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, an authorised retailer. Coty Germany, a subsidiary of the US parent company Coty Inc., sells luxury cosmetics in Germany through a selective distribution network of authorised distributors. Parfümerie Akzente is a longstanding authorised distributor for…
‘Product hopping’, or ‘evergreening’, are expressions used (by antitrust authorities and industry respectively) to describe strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies to protect sales of a successful drug on the verge of losing patent protection. For example, a pharmaceutical company might introduce a new formulation of the drug before it faces significant competition from a generic…
The competition and agricultural rules in the EU treaties have lived separate lives for many decades. While an agricultural exemption from the competition rules was already foreseen by Article 42 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 42 TFEU) and this exemption has been included in secondary legislation since 1962, in practice its scope was…
On the 14 September, the Court of Justice of the European Union provided detailed guidance on the concept of excessive pricing under Article 102 TFEU, in response to questions posed by the Latvian Supreme Court. In Case C-177/16, the Latvian Supreme Court referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European…
