competitionlaw

In the Case A523 ( Ticketing services/TicketOne ) the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) opened an Article 102 TFEU investigation against TicketOne Spa (TO), which was alleged to have abused its dominant position in the market for ticketing services for live music events. The relevant product market identified by the ICA was the market for the provision of ticketing services in connection for live music concerts whose geographical scope was national. Running the leading ticketing platform accounting for a 70-80% market shares, TO was found to have a dominant position within this market. TO succeeded in reaching this leading market position, amongst other things, by implementing two vertical agreements concluded with the former member of the Panischi company and a number of promoters that organized the live music events (the Panischi agreements) that were exempted by a decision made by the ICA on 14 March 2002. The first Panischi agreement conferred on TO a 15-year exclusivity

The Luxembourg Competition Authority dismisses an RPM allegation against a dairy products manufacturer due to the lack of evidence that a vertical agreement exists In the Luxlait case ( decision of 26 June 2018 no. 2018-FO-03 , Luxlait Association Agricole, Luxlait-Expansion S.A., Nouvelle Luxlait Produits Sarl, Luxlait Distribution SA (Luxlait) , www.concurrence.lu ) the Luxembourg Competition Authority (LCA) opened an antitrust investigation against a manufacturer of a dairy products that was alleged to have determined the minimum prices for retailers to apply to its dairy products. Eventually, the LCA closed the investigation with a non-infringement decision because no vertical restraint could be found to the requisite evidentiary standard. The facts of the caase Luxlait Association Agricole together with its subsidiaries (hereinafter referred as Luxlait) were active in the production and distribution of milk and dairy products. In 2010 an undisclosed hard-discount r

In its judgment released in The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission , the General Court of the EU has confirmed a strict application of the parental liability rule to private equity investors. Pursuant to the doctrine of single economic entity, private equity funds may be held liable for the competition fines levied for the anti-competitive on the basis of the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence. Importantly, as clarified by the Court, the presumption also applies to investors that have all the voting rights associated to the shares of the investee in combination with having a high majority stake in such companies. An investor meeting this condition can be likened to a parent company that own the entire share of the subsidiary. The paper is available here . 

Applying the Altmark doctrine to the case The Coastal Route Contracts Bergen-Kirkenes (Decision of 16 August 2018 no 072/18/COL) the EFTA Surveillance Authority (the ESA) has ruled out that a public service compensation paid by Norway for the provision of maritime links constituted State aid. Following guidance given by the Authority in the previous Hurtigruten case (Decision no. 70/17/COL) the Norwegian contracting authorities divided the contract for the provision of the so-called Coastal Route links into three different packages with a 10-year entrustment period. The maritime links to be provided by the awardees was qualified as a public service obligation (PSO). And the compensation to be paid to the providers of these PSO was found by the ESA to meet all the four conditions for the application of the Altmark doctrine. First Condition- Clearly defined PSO In the ESA view, the PSO compensation granted to the awardees, Hurtigruten and Havila, constitutes compensation fo

In the judgment handed down in the E&Y case, following a preliminary question referred to it under Article 267 TFEU, the Court of Justice of the EU for the first time dealt with the issue of gun-jumping. Applying the ‘change of control’ test, the Court made it clear that the parties to a merger duly notified to the European Commission or other national competition authorities do not infringe the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) of the Regulation (EU) No. 1039/2004 or in corresponding national provisions when, while the regulatory review is still pending, they implement a reverse integration by cutting the links between them and a third party. The paper is available here .