competitionlaw

On 26 July 2016 the Luxembourg Competition Authority, Conseil de la Concurrence, (LCA) has closed an investigation into a resale price maintenance agreement (RPM), opened in the case SCAB Giardino Spa ( Giardino ) [1] , with a no-infringement decision. By this decision the LCA clarified that an RPM agreement is a competition restraint by object but it did not penalize the firms under investigation because it failed to establish that the supplier and distributor put in place such restrictive agreement. Finally, the LCA reminded that also vertical agreements, such as RPM agreements, fell within the scope of application of the Luxembourg leniency programme. The facts of the case Peter Pin Sarl (PP) was a Luxembourg-based retailer of furniture and home décor. One day in 2014, a shop assistant of PP refused to grant a rebate to a customer interested in buying some pieces of furniture produced by the Italian manufacturer, SCAB Giardino Spa (Giardino). Unfortunately for PP, the prospec

The Italian Competition Authority grants an interim junction to allow the carrying out of a competitive tender procedure in the public local transport services sector ( Gara TPL Padova ) In the case Gara TPL Padova the Italian Competition Authority (ICA), on the basis of Article 14-bis of the Italian Competition Act no. 287/1990, took an interim measure ordering one of the firms under scrutiny to provide a contracting authority with the necessary data to be included in the tender notice that the addressee of the order had not previously provided [1] . The Province of Padua (PP) was the contracting authority for the competitive tender procedure to select the supplier of local public transport services in the territorial ambit of Padua. Busitalia Sita Nord (BSN) and APS Holding (APS), controlled by BusItalia Veneto (BV), were the holders of the concessions, respectively, for the urban public transport and non-urban public transport services in the territorial ambit of Padua. APS