competitionlaw

An Article 101 TFEU investigation started by the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) against Centrale Italiana (CI) has been closed by a commitment decision (Case I768, Centrale d'aquisto per la grande distribuzione Organizzata ). CI was formed by some Italian large supermarket chains that entrusted it with the task to operate as a purchase supercentre, negotiating all the supply contracts on their behalf with the aim to obtain more favourable commercial terms from suppliers. The ICA believed that the CI activities might restrain competition in the upstream procurement markets, by reducing the capability of weaker suppliers to stay on the market, as well as in the downstream selling markets, by giving the parties incentives to coordinate their commercial policies. Collusion among the parties was also facilitated by the exchange of sensitive commercial information through the CI and by some bilateral cooperation agreements concluded by the parties. To resolve the above comp

By the judgment of 9 September 2014 made in the Case T-461/12 HansestadtLübeck v Commission the General Court of the EU (the Court) has set aside the Article 108(2) TFEU decision of the Commission to open a state aid in-depth investigations targeting the financial relations between public authorities and the Lübeck-Blankensee Airport ( CaseSA.27585 and Case SA.31149 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-156_en.htm ). More precisely, the European Commission focused on the fees the manager of Lübeck-Blankensee Airport charged to airlines for using the airport facilities. The airport manager set such fees with the 2006 Fees Regulation, which was duly submitted to the local authorities of the Land of Schleswig Holstein for prior approval as required by the German legislation. In particular, the Commission believed that the airport fees set in the 2006 Regulation amounted to state aid, since they conferred an undue competitive advantage on the carriers operating at the Lübeck-Blanke

By a settlement decision ( https://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=fr&msg-id=54100 ) made on 19 August 2014 the Swiss Competition Authority (Comco) has closed an investigation against a car dealer, AMAG, which entered into a horizontal anticompetitive agreement with other car distributors. In May 2013 the Comco opened an enquiry against several distributors of vehicles manufactured by the Volkswagen group, among which AMAG. In particular the Comco believed that the rebates and discounts agreed by the distributors for the sale of brand new vehicles infringed the Swiss Cartel Act. The decision to open the investigation was based on the evidence submit by AMAG, which disclosed the existence of the price-fixing agreements. As said above, in August 2014 the Comco reached a settlement agreement with AMAG. Under this arrangement, AMAG committed to not apply rebates and other discounts agreed with its competitors and also to not exchange sensitive price information with the

By a decision made on 24 July 2014 in the case 14-D-08 Yaourt saux Antilles the Autorité de la Concurrence or French Competition Authority (FCA) fined Société Nouvelle des Yaourts de Littée (SNYL) for breaching Article 102 TFEU. The FCA took the view that SNYL had abused its dominant position in the Antillean market for dairy products by denigrating a competitor, Laiterie de Saint-Malo (Malo). More precisely, SNYL tarnished the reputation of Malo by arguing in several ways that the latter did not comply with food safety regulation. First, SNYL commissioned a bacteriological study on yoghurts and cheeses marketed by Malo. As the study showed that the Malo products were not fresh, SNYL maintained that the products of its competitor did not comply with the food safety rules. However, the FCA held that the SNYL allegations were groundless. The validity of the studies on which SNYL based such allegations was marred by the use of a wrong methodology. The laboratory that conducted the