Speech by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager,
Bocconi University Academic Year Opening Ceremony,
28 November 2017
[..] We need to act now. This is our opportunity to make taxation fair. [..] Closing the loopholes in our tax systems will help. But people also need proof that our tax systems are fair. [..] We’ve come a long way in the last three years. The culture is changing, in tax authorities and businesses.Now we need to show that, in ways that the public can see. Not so people start to love paying tax - that's never going to happen. But so that every time they do pay, they know that they’re part of a community where everyone – without any exceptions – makes their contribution.

COMP in ACTION - our flagship publication gives you a unique insight into what happened in EU Competition Policy in the recent past. This brochure shows how Competition Policy is shaped and implemented. It presents Competition in Action - with interviews and background articles.

Speech by Director-General Johannes Laitenberger,
Colloque de l'Autorité de la concurrence, Paris
24 November 2017

Après toutes ces années de droit de la concurrence dans le domaine de l'économie numérique, nous avons aussi appris que de nombreux marchés numériques ne présentent pas de prix explicites. […] On pourrait les appeler "les marchés sans prix monétaire". Cela exige que les autorités de concurrence se focalisent donc sur les autres paramètres de la concurrence: le choix, la qualité, l'innovation.

This preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice clarifies the legal effects of commitment decisions adopted by the Commission on domestic judicial proceedings. The Court of Justice has made it clear that a national court may still review the agreements that are the subject of an Article 9 commitments decision by the European Commission, to see if they infringe EU competition rules. The judgment is fully in line with the Commission's submission to the Court. It confirms that when the Commission adopts a commitment decision, it concludes that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without concluding on whether there has been or still is an infringement.

The Commission welcomes the judgment by the Court of Justice, which fully dismisses an appeal by SACE and SACE BT against a June 2015 judgment of the General Court concerning aid granted to SACE BT. The General Court’s judgment upheld a 2013 Commission decision finding that aid was granted to SACE BT and ordering the recovery of around €78 million. The Court of Justice confirmed the Commission's assessment that the support provided by SACE to its subsidiary SACE BT does not correspond to the behaviour of a market economy investor and was imputable to the State.

Speech - Commissioner Margrethe Vestager,
Honorary Doctorate Ceremony, KU Leuven, 23/11/2017
"[..] We can shape globalisation in a way that works for all of us. We can have European companies that are strong and competitive, able to match up to the best in the world. We can also have an economy that meets the needs of consumers, where individuals can count on a fair deal. And our competition rules can do their bit to make that happen."

Speech - Commissioner Margrethe Vestager
Rencontres de Bercy, Paris, 21/11/2017
"[..]We need to make sure technology doesn't undermine people's basic expectations of society. Whether that means privacy, or democracy, or fair taxation."

The Commission welcomes the judgment by the Court of Justice, which fully dismisses an appeal by British Airways against a December 2015 judgment of the General Court concerning the airfreight cartel case. By its appeal, British Airways plc seeked to have set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union by which that court annulled in part Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight) (‘the decision at issue’), in so far as it concerns British Airways.

The Commission takes note of the judgment by the General Court on the Commission cartel decision as regards ICAP's participation in infringements in the sector of Yen interest rate derivatives (YIRD). This Court has provided welcome confirmations in relation to a number of aspects, including the fact that all six infringements concerned by the Commission decision restricted competition by their object, in breach of EU antitrust rules. Furthermore, the General Court fully upheld the notion that companies breach EU antitrust rules also by facilitating cartels. The Commission will carefully analyse the judgment in other regards, in particular its findings on the duration of ICAP's participation and ICAP's participation in one infringement. The Court emphasised that the Commission must comply with the presumption of innocence of the non-settling parties, also in so-called "staggered hybrid procedures" (i.e. a cartel procedure whereby the settlement decision for certain companies preceded the adoption of the decision under the normal cartel procedure for undertakings that participated in the same infringement). In this case, it criticised the specific position taken by the Commission as of its 2013 settlement decision but found it had no direct impact on the legality of the cartel decision as regards ICAP. The Commission fully recognises the importance of impartiality in competition investigations and protecting parties' rights of defence, including notably the presumption of innocence. We will carefully analyse the judgment in this regard.
Court's Press relase

On 27 March 2014, the Commission ordered Greece to recover aid of EUR 136 million (plus interest) granted to LARCO in the form of State guarantees and capital injections. On the same date, the Commission adopted a 'no aid' decision regarding the sale of certain assets of LARCO (SA.37954). The sale aimed at maintaining the value of these assets. Neither the recovery decision nor the 'no aid' decision has been implemented. The Court of Justice now ruled that Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty by not implementing the Commission’s. In particular, Greece did not take the necessary measures to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid granted in favour of LARCO. Greece must implement the Commission decision immediately and effectively. This is essential because delays in the recovery of unlawful subsidies perpetuate the distortion of competition created by the aid. The Commission welcomes this judgment.

The Commission welcomes this judgment. It is an important clarification regarding the notion of State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, and in particular on when financing may be considered to come from State resources. The judgment does not put in question, however, that the financing of TV2 was compatible with the internal market, even though it constituted aid. The issues of the case date back to 19 May 2004 when the Commission adopted a decision stating that the aid granted between 1995 and 2002 to TV2 in the form of licence fee resources is compatible with the internal market, with the exception of an amount of Danish kroner 628.2 million. The Commission ordered the recovery of that sum from TV2. The Commission found that the financing had led to substantial overcompensation.

The Commission welcomes the judgment rejecting the appeal of TV2/Danmark. It clarifies the interpretation and application of the fourth Altmark criterion (this criterion is an important element in determining whether compensation for the performance of a public service mission, like e.g. public service broadcasting, constitutes market conform compensation or State aid). The issues of the case date back to 19 May 2004 when the Commission adopted a decision stating that the aid granted between 1995 and 2002 to TV2 in the form of licence fee resources is compatible with the internal market, with the exception of an amount of Danish kroner 628.2 million. The Commission ordered the recovery of that sum from TV2. The Commission found that the financing had led to substantial overcompensation.

The Commission takes note of this judgement.

Speech by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager,
Web Summit, Lisbon, 7 November 2017

"[..] Companies have to take fairness and trust just as seriously as they do innovation. So we can make the most of what technology can do for us."

This study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a quantitative, ex-post evaluation of the impact of individual merger decisions on innovation in the markets concerned. Also see: Studies & Reports page

The Court of Justice rulings confirm the assessment of the General Court that the companies were able to secure the necessary funding or guarantee to pay the fine. Therefore, the fine of €54 million imposed by the Commission on Global Steel Wire and its 3 subsidiaries for their participation in the prestressing steel cartel is upheld. These latest judgments also fully confirm the General Court's finding that, in setting the fine for participation in a cartel, the Commission correctly assessed the companies as a single economic unity.
Details:
C-454/16 P Global Steel Wire,
C-455/16 P Moreda-Riviere Trefilerias,
C-456/16 P Trefilerias Quijano,
C-458/16 P Trenzas y Cables de Acero
C-457/16 P Global Steel Wire
C-459/16 P Trenzas y Cables de Acero
C-460/16 P Trefilerias Quijano
C-461/16 P Moreda-Reviere Trefilerias

The General Court dismissed in full Marine Harvest's appeal against a Commission decision (July 2014) fining Marine Harvest €20 million for acquiring control over Morpol before the Commission had approved of the concentration under the EU Merger Regulation. This judgment is an additional reminder to companies of their duty not to implement concentrations of an EU dimension before notifying and receiving the Commission's approval (the so-called "standstill obligation" imposed by the Merger Regulation). Failure to comply with this requirement carries the risk of significant penalties.

The General Court rejected the appeal by Vienna International Medical Clinic and upholds the Commission´s decision of 27 May 2016. This confirms the Commission´s findings that in order to reject a complaint, the Commission may base its decision on the fact that a national competition authority is dealing with the same agreement, decision or practice.

The General Court annulled the Commission decision, based on a procedural ground, namely that the Commission did not explain in the contested decision the reasons for not raising any competition concerns in relation to Premium Pay TV sports channels, thus breaching its duty to state reasons. The Commission fully recognises the importance of providing sufficient reasoning as to whether a proposed concentration is likely or not to significantly impede effective competition, and will carefully analyse the judgment.

Speech by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager,
Chilling Competition Conference, Brussels 25 October 2017
"[..] When competition enforcement and regulation work well together [..] we get a market that really serves the needs of Europe's people. And that's how we make the principles of our Treaty a reality in people's everyday lives."