On 6 October 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in a case concerning rebates and when they fall foul of EU competition law.
The case concerns Post Danmark and, unlike appeals against European Commission Decisions, came by way of a reference from the Danish High Court seeking formal guidance on the interpretation of EU law relating to rebates. This is the second of two such cases involving Post Danmark, the first having been decided in 2012.
The relevant market in this case was the bulk mail market, in which Post Danmark had a 95% share and its only rival a 5% share. Post Danmark offered a standardised volume rebate scheme applied to all customers, with a series of [...]
On 1 October 2015, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”) entered into force. The CRA 2015 makes numerous changes to consumer rights laws in the United Kingdom. Of particular interest to competition practitioners and litigators are the provisions on private actions in competition law, contained in section 81 of and Schedule 8 to the CRA 2015. These are likely to change the face of competition litigation in the United Kingdom, whether brought by commercial entities or groups of consumers. They have been described in the media as introducing “US-style class actions law suits”; whilst this is undoubtedly somewhat hyperbolic, it is clear that things will never be the same again.
On 15 September 2015, the Ukrainian competition authority, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (the AMCU), adopted Recommendations on approaches for calculation of fines for competition law infringements (the Recommendations). This long-awaited step is the result of active public discussions initiated by the AMCU and by the Ukrainian legal professionals’ community.
This event is of great importance to both business, legal practitioners and for the entire society. The Recommendations are expected to develop Ukrainian law enforcement and judicial practices. Firstly, the official explanations will significantly reduce corruption factors and eliminate lack of transparency allowing the watchdog [...]
Company H.R. functions, such as recruitment and compensation, are not typically regarded as antitrust “hot spots” (as opposed to sales and marketing). Recent cases in the United States, however, highlight how hiring practices can create the risk of competition law violations for companies and their H.R. personnel. Since Canadian competition law is similar to U.S. antitrust law in these respects, it is important that Canadian H.R. professionals be aware of these risks and protect themselves and their companies from exposure.
The most notable recent U.S. case saw the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice file a civil complaint against several of the world’s largest high-tech [...]
Co-authored by Patrick Harrison and Lara Kaplan, Sidley Austin LLP.
The European Commission (“Commission”) introduced its settlement procedure for cartel cases back in 2008.1 The main aims? To make life easier for the Commission and to keep cartel cases out of the overburdened EU Courts. But Timab – a party to the Commission’s 2010 Animal Feed Phosphates cartel case (only the second settlement case concluded by the Commission) – clearly has other ideas: by an appeal lodged on 27 July 2015 it is taking its challenge to the Commission’s approach to settlement all the way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). In addition to using up scarce Commission re [...]
What and when?
The Commission has adopted amendments to a number of its key procedural rules in order to bring them into line with the EU Directive on Damages Actions, which was adopted in 2014 and must be incorporated into the national law of EU Member States by 27 December 2016. The amendments focus on the use of evidence included in the Commission’s case file, and in particular aim to protect leniency corporate statements and settlement submissions from being used in damages actions in national courts.