competitionlaw

Combating bid-rigging practices affecting public procurement contracts in the health sector is always a high priority for the Italian Competition Authority (ICA), as reflected by its recent decision to open an antitrust investigation in the case I819 ( Gara per produzione e fornitura al sistema sanitario di farmaci plasma derivati, http://www.agcm.it/component/joomdoc/allegati-news/I819_avvio.pdf/download.html ). This time, in the case I819, the ICA considered the joint bidding of two manufacturers, Kedrion and Grifols, for the contracts for the supply of plasma derived to the health system of the region of Emilia Romagna (HSER). The temporary association of undertakings set up by Kedrion and Grifols (RTI) was the awardee of the supply contract. As is known, temporary associations of undertakings can be lawfully used for jointly bidding if its members cannot qualify for make single bids. However, in the case I819 the ICA had concern that the joint bidding of Kedrion and Grifols t

The decision of the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) in the SIE case is about the application of the essential facilities doctrine in the daily newspaper sector, relating to the interaction between intellectual property rights and competition [1] . The ICA took the view that access to the copyrighted contents of a daily newspaper published by the dominant firm was considered as an essential input for a firm providing news review services. Refusing access to such items then constituted an abusive conduct. The facts of the case Società Iniziative Editoriali Spa (SIE) was the publisher of the daily newspapers ‘L’Adige’. Euregio Srl GmbH (Euregio) provided media intelligence services under the brand name of Infojuice. More precisely, Euregio reviewed the news published on the local press to clients in the province of Trento (PAT), among which, in particular, those published on ‘L’Adige’. Until the end of December 2016 ‘L’Adige’ was included in the Repertorio Promopress (RP) sys

In Unilever/Distribuzione Gelati the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has imposed a € 60 million fine on Unilever for abusing its dominant position in the market for the impulse ice cream by a complex foreclosing strategy. To pursue this strategy, Unilever invited the managers of bathing establishments and bartenders to not sell anymore the ice creams of La Bomba, which produced ice-lollies generally sold in the seaside resorts of Central Italy. Unilever also threatened retailers selling competing products with the imposition of financial penalties, termination of the supply contracts and refusal to grant the rebates they were entitled to. Unilever had a dominant position in the relevant product market, the wholesale market for packaged ice creams, due to its high market shares and the strong reputation enjoyed by the Algida brand under which it marketed its products. The theory of competition harm on which the ICA relied to establish the Unilever competition liability was