competitionlaw

The first post of 2021 is about the decision handed down by the Luxembourg Competition Authority (LCA) in the LNS case (no. 2020-NC-06, LaboratoireNational de Santé ). In this case the LCA examined and rejected an application for interim relief against allegedly anticompetitive practices concerning Covid-19 testing in the middle of the pandemics. The proceedings commenced on 14 September 2020 when Bionext, a privately-held medical laboratory, filed a complaint with the LCA. By the complaint Bionext reported a number of practices put in place by a competing public undertaking, Laboratoire National de Santé (LNS), which appeared to breach Article 102 TFEU and the corresponding national competition rules. More specifically, Bionext pointed to the decision of the Luxembourg authorities to confer on LNS a legal monopoly on some Covid-19 testing methods: the PCR tests for hospitals and serological tests to be executed in the context of the government-backed massive screening campaign. Foll...

Following the receipt of a report filed by an aggrieved reseller, by a decision made on 14 July 2020 the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has opened an Article 101 TFEU investigation against Apple and Amazon in the case I842 ( Vendita prodotti Apple e Beats su Amazon Marketplace orApple/Amazon Marketplace ). The target of the ICA investigation is an agreement concluded by Apple and Amazon that would have imposed an online sales ban on the Apple products. Retailers of Apple products are resellers that may be or not members of the Apple official distribution programme. Resellers that are not member of this network can lawfully sell Apple products as the Apple wholesalers supply them with such products.     Apple and Amazon compete in the market for on-line retailing activities for consumer electronics products in which they are the two biggest players. Both of them sell the Apple and Beats goods while Amazon also sells its own devices in competition with Apple. In additio...

By a recent commitment decision (Case A442 Assofort/ADR-Servizi Aeroportuali ) the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has closed an investigation against the manager of airport of Rome Fiumicino (FCO), Aeroporti di Roma (ADR). More precisely, ADR was alleged to have abused its dominant position in the market for the provision of access to common and exclusive use facilities necessary to carry out economic activities at FCO. In the ICA view, ADR would have charged excessive prices to Hertz Italiana (Hertz). Hertz through its local agent (DMH) provided low cost innovative rent-a- car services at FCO, labelled Advantage-rent-car (Advantage). Advantage enable clients to make their booking though a dedicated internet site and upon arrival at FCO they are picked up by shuttle buses calling at the parking lots located outside the airport where they can find the cars they have booked. ADR objected to Hertz that in carrying out the Advantage Business it breached the sub-concession contrac...

Following the receipt of a complaint lodged by a transport trade association, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has opened an investigation into an alleged abuse of manager of Rome airport of Fiumicino (FCO), Aeroporti di Roma (ADR) ( Case A442, Associazione Nazionale Fornitori Trasporti-Assofort/ADR ). The relevant market for the ICA investigation was the market for access to the facilities of exclusive or common use for carrying commercial activities at FCO. ADR had a dominant position in this market as it hold a concession for the management of the airport. At FCO Demontis Holding (DMH) carried out on behalf of Hertz the activity of renting cars to the customers had previously hired them at dedicated web sites (Advantage-rent-a-car). A shuttle bus service supplied by DMH collected customers at the air terminal and carried them to a parking lot located outside the FCO perimeter. ADR informed DMH that in providing the Advantage-rent-a-car services the latter infringed th...

Can the doctrine of an essential facility apply to a theatre of a small town? This question has been addressed by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio (Tar Lazio) in the judgment in the Teatro della Provvidenza case. According to the Tar Lazio the reply to the question was in the affirmative and it categorized the Teatro della Provvidenza or Theatre of Providence owned by the Diocese of Vallo della Lucania, a small town in Southern Italy, as an essential facility. Thus, the message coming through the judgment is that the doctrine of essential facilities also applies to small-sized infrastructures, provided that the 4-pronged test for the application of the doctrine is met. However, the validity of this idea in Teatro della Provvidenza is marred by the shoddy administration of the test for essential facility made by the Tar Lazio when assessing the non-duplicability requirement. Indeed, firstly it embraced quite a narrow definition of the relevant geographic market, which was...

By a decision made on 22 September 2011 the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has unconditionally cleared an airline merger, the Meridiana acquisition of Air Italy, in spite of the very high market shares the parties had on some overlapping routes ( Case C11167, Meridiana-Azionisti Air Italy/Air Italy Holding-Meridiana Fly ). On the basis of the traditional city pair method the ICA found that the merged carrier would have a 70-80% market share on the Olbia-Napoli route and quasi monopoly position with a 90-95% market share on the Olbia-Torino and Verona-Napoli routes. Nevertheless, the ICA believed that the transaction would have not created any competition problems because the dominant position of the merger carrier was contestable. New operators were able to start links competing with Meridiana and Air Italy as there were no entry barriers enter. In fact none of the airports connected by the examined routes were congested and subjected to the coordination regime. Therefore any...