From December 2010 to February 2011, the FCO investigated a planned settlement between the parties to a tender dispute in the public transport sector. The FCO suspected that the planned settlement would infringe the cartel prohibition (“buying competition”). The FCO issued a case report on February 25, 2011. The case illustrates that the FCO, which…
Consumer belief in all regulation and its efficacy has taken such an enormous battering following the banking crisis that regulators have to look more like policemen and less like flunkeys if they want to be taken seriously.
In her recent Opinion in the KME case, AG Sharpston ventured a few considerations on the nature of EU antitrust decisions and on the due process requirements arising from Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to a fair trial, to be added to a growing list of signals perceptible in recent judgments of a progressive move toward a broader interpretation of the EU Courts unlimited jurisdiction and, possibly, the exercise of full appellate jurisdiction over Commission decisions imposing fines.
The German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) fined three manufacturers of fire-fighting vehicles on February 10, 2011, imposing € 20.5 million in total. The FCO found that the companies had engaged in bid rigging since 2001 (price-fixing, quota agreements and market sharing). As usual, the FCO did not only fine the companies, but also the individuals…
On the 2nd of December 2010 the Brazilian Senate approved the text of a new competition act. The draft legislation has been pending in the Brazilian Parliament since 2005, when it was proposed by the Government. After a long parliamentary debate, in December 2009 the draft law was passed by the Chamber of Representatives. The…
The fairness of EU competition policy has been frequently challenged in the 2000s. It has been argued that the European Commission discriminates against small market companies in its merger assessment. Discussion on the reasons of the alleged discrimination has frequently revolved around the Commission’s method of market delineation in its merger assessment, which would result…
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking to curb the use of so-called “most favored nation” (MFN) agreements — a common business practice that the DOJ believes can sometimes result in anticompetitive effects when entered into by a dominant firm. In October of last year, the DOJ commenced an action against Blue Cross Blue…
In a recent judgment of December 15, 2010, the General Court had an opportunity to discuss the competitive analysis of aftermarkets. At issue in that case were complaints by independent watch repairers that they were unable to obtain spare parts from manufacturers of luxury watches. The Commission rejected these complaints inter alia on the ground…
On October 5, 2010, the Federal Court of Justice upheld the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals’ rejection of an appeal against the conditions of a merger clearance decision brought by the merging parties (EDEKA/Plus, KVR 33/09). The Court of Appeals considered the action as inadmissible, because the parties had already implemented the merger and thus lacked…
The new U.S. Horizontal Merger Guidelines, issued in August 2010, introduce the so-called GUPPI test, the Gross Upward Pricing Pressure Index. According to the U.S. Guidelines, “[a]dverse unilateral price effects can arise when the merger gives the merged entity an incentive to raise the price of a product previously sold by one merging firm and…
