DG Competition will host on 27 March 2025 an expert online workshop with the authors of the new Ex post evaluation study on the effectiveness of antitrust remedies study and leading experts on antitrust remedies to discuss both the findings and the recommendations of the study. The Webex link will be shared with participants a few days before the event.
The European Commission has launched today a public consultation inviting all interested parties to express their views on the functioning of the competition rules applicable to vertical agreements in the automotive sector. These rules include the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation (‘MVBER') and the Supplementary Guidelines (‘SGL'), both as amended in April 2023, as well as the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (‘VBER') and the Guidelines on vertical restraints, as far as they apply to the automotive sector.
This initiative aims to evaluate the Regulation ahead of its expiry on 31 May 2028, looking at the following aspects in particular:
The Commission takes note of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU which The judgment clarifies that the Council Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports does not exclude the application of EU competition law’s prohibition of abusive conduct in situations where the airport provider refuses access to the airport infrastructure necessary for the provision of ground handling services at EU airports.
In particular, the Court confirmed that the mere existence of sectoral rules in no way means that the conduct in question is exempted from the competition rules laid down by the Treaties, irrespective of whether or not those sectoral rules are applicable to that conduct.
The European Commission has decided to close its interim measures antitrust proceedings against Lufthansa. In particular, the Commission found that not all the conditions for ordering interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 were met. Such proceedings aimed at ordering the airline to reinstate Condor's access to Lufthansa's feed traffic to and from Frankfurt airport under the conditions the two airlines agreed upon in June 2024.
The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case Alphabet and Others (C-233/23) clarifying the interpretation of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).
In particular, the Court clarified that, where a dominant company has developed a digital platform intended for use by third parties, it may constitute an abuse of dominant position to refuse to grant interoperability between that platform and a third-party app. The Court has also emphasised that this refusal can be an abuse even if access to that platform is not indispensable for the commercial operation of the third-party app, but is such as to make that app more attractive to consumers.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the fact that the third-party app and other competitors remained on the market or even grew their position despite not having access to the dominant company’s platform does not mean that the refusal of interoperability did not have anti-competitive effects and was therefore not abusive. Such refusal can still be considered abusive if it has the potential to hinder competition on the market.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The study was launched in 2022 in anticipation of the 20th anniversary of Regulation 1/2003 with a view to contribute new evidence and insights for improving (1) the Commission’s remedies practice within the current legal framework and (2) the legal framework in Regulation 1/2003 itself. The design of the study was inspired by the pioneering 2005 ex post evaluation merger remedies study which at the time led significant improvements of the Commission’s merger remedies policy.
The study assesses the effectiveness of antitrust remedies imposed or accepted by the European Commission over the past 20 years under Articles 7 and 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The study draws on (1) an ex post evaluation of a carefully selected sample of twelve significant antitrust remedy cases (2) a statistical analysis of a comprehensive dataset of non-cartel antitrust decisions (2003-2022), (3) interviews with experts and (4) an in-depth literature review.
See also background and the main results summarized in this factsheet.
Moreover, DG Competition will host a workshop on 27 March at lunchtime with the authors of the study and leading experts – stay tuned for the details!
The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice in the Athenian Brewery Case (C-393/23). The case concerns the question whether a person claiming to have been harmed by an infringement of EU competition law can sue the company which committed that infringement at the seat of the parent company in another Member State jointly with that parent company.
The judgment clarifies that a parent company and its subsidiary can be jointly sued at the place where one of them is domiciled if the parent company exercises decisive influence on the economic activity of the subsidiary.
Where the parent company holds all or almost all the shares in the capital of its subsidiary, a presumption applies that it exercises such decisive influence over the subsidiary.
On 1 August 2024 the Commission launched a consultation of interested parties to comment on draft Guidelines on exclusionary abuses of dominance. The draft Guidelines aim at reflecting the EU courts’ case law on exclusionary abuses and the Commission’s enforcement practice developed in line with it.
DG Competition is organizing an interactive stakeholder workshop to gather views on different key aspects of the draft Guidelines and discuss the practical implications of their application. Participants will be divided into groups to discuss various topics in eight breakout sessions. The results will be presented and discussed in two plenary sessions.
Registrations for the workshop are now open!
The Commission takes note of the Court’s ruling on cases C-510/23 Trenitalia SpA, and C-511/23 Caronte & Tourist, which clarify that Member States may establish national rules on the duration of pre-investigations in consumer and competition law proceedings, provided that these rules comply with the principle of effectiveness and relevant EU secondary law.
Specifically, the Court of Justice emphasises that such rules must not render the implementation of EU law practically impossible or excessively difficult.
In the case at hand, the Court finds that time limits which are excessively short, and which may preclude national authorities from finding and fining infringements of EU consumer and competition law, pose a systematic risk. Consequently, the Court found that such time limits are incompatible with EU law.
It is for the referring court to implement the Court’s ruling.
The Court’s ruling is in line with the Commission’s position.
The judgment concerns the assignment of competition law damages claims by several putative victims to a legal person for the purpose of bringing a single damages action in only one lawsuit (in which that legal person acts as claimant).
It clarifies that the principles of effectiveness and effective judicial protection preclude the interpretation of national law which, in the absence of a final decision by a competition authority finding an infringement of competition law, automatically prohibits putative victims of competition law infringements from assigning their claims for compensation on a fiduciary basis to a legal person for the purpose of bringing a single damages action, if no other equivalent legal or contractual possibilities for consolidating claims for damages exist. The assignment on a fiduciary basis implies that putative victims only receive payment on their claims, if the damages action (in or out of court) is successful.
If no interpretation of the national provisions forming the basis of such a prohibition, which is consistent with the principles of effectiveness and effective judicial protection, is possible, national courts must disapply the said provisions.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union finding that Estonia has failed to transpose the ECN+ Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1)) into national legislation, in breach of Article 34 of the ECN+ Directive.
In its judgment, the Court imposed a lump sum on Estonia of €400 000 as well as a daily penalty payment of €3000, applying from 23 January 2025 until the day Estonia notifies full transposition to the Commission.
The Commission expects Estonia to promptly bring the infringement to an end by promptly adopting and communicating transposition measures. This is essential to ensure that competition law is enforced with the same powers and guarantees throughout the European Union.
The European Commission has sent a Supplementary Statement of Objections to Lufthansa indicating the Commission's intention to order the airline to reinstate Condor's access to Lufthansa's feed traffic to and from Frankfurt airport under the conditions the two airlines agreed upon in June 2024.
The European Commission has fined Meta €797.72 million for breaching EU antitrust rules by tying its online classified ads service Facebook Marketplace to its personal social network Facebook and by imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers.
See also COMP Flash on META’s fine over abusive practices.
You can listen to DG Competition Massimiliano Kadar’s insightful intervention on the European Commission’s perspective on future developments at the event 'The Reform of Article 102 TFEU: Evolution or Revolution?'. This event was hosted by the Inclusive Competition Forum (ICF) in collaboration with the Centre for Law, Economics and Society at University College London (UCL).
The European Commission has opened a formal investigation to assess whether Corning may have abused its dominant position on the worldwide market for a special type of glass that is mainly used to protect the screens of handheld electronic devices, such as mobile phones.
The European Commission has fined Teva €462.6 million for abusing its dominant position to delay competition to its blockbuster medicine for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, Copaxone. The Commission found that Teva artificially extended the patent protection of Copaxone and systematically spread misleading information about a competing product to hinder its market entry and uptake.
See also Statement by Executive Vice-President Vestager.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court of Justice rejected the Commission’s appeal against the ruling of the General Court of 26 January 2022. In its ruling, the General Court partially annulled a 2009 Commission's decision.
In its 2009 decision, the Commission found that Intel had engaged in two specific forms of illegal practices by: (i) giving wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 central processing units (‘CPUs') from Intel (so-called ‘conditional rebates'); and (ii) paying computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products (so-called 'naked restrictions').
After the General Court had first upheld the entirety of the Commission decision in 2014, the Court of Justice, upon appeal by Intel, annulled in 2019 the 2014 General Court ruling as regards the conditional rebates, and sent back this part of the decision for review by the General Court.
In its 2022 judgment, the General Court annulled the Commission's finding related to Intel's conditional rebates practice. At the same time, the General Court confirmed that Intel's naked restrictions amounted to an abuse of dominant market position under EU competition rules.
The Commission appealed the part of the 2022 judgment of the General Court concerning Intel’s conditional rebates. Therefore, today’s judgment concerns only those. On the other hand, given that the part of the 2022 General Court judgment concerning the naked restrictions has not been appealed by Intel, it has become final.
We will carefully analyse the judgment by the Court of Justice.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The European Commission and the Swiss Competition Commission COMCO close preliminary investigation into alleged patent-related abuse by Novartis. The investigation, conducted in close cooperation between the European Commission and COMCO, focused on Novartis' acquisition and enforcement of patents related to innovative treatments for a skin condition.
After analysing the collected evidence, both authorities concluded that there was insufficient basis to pursue the case further. The closure of a preliminary investigation does not imply that the behaviour under review complies with EU competition laws.
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which confirms the 2018 Commission decision against Gazprom. In its decision, the Commission imposed legally binding commitments on Gazprom to address the competition concerns identified in the context of its antitrust investigation into Gazprom’s practices in Central and Easter European gas markets.
Today’s judgment fully upholds the Commission’s assessment and decision. It also provides useful clarifications about the Commission’s procedure leading to the adoption of commitments decision pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as well as the interplay between competition law and other Treaty objectives.
