Jerónimo Maillo

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 1, Page 49 - 58

Pieter J.F. Huizing

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 2, Page 96 - 107

The history of active enforcement of cartels having a worldwide scope does not go back much further than twenty-five years. But a remarkable development has taken place within this relatively short timeframe. This article aims to provide quantitative insight into the changing nature of global cartel enforcement. It identifies 41 global cartels which were subject to corporate fines and which were discovered between 1990 and 2018. An analysis of the sanctioning of these cartels shows that more and more authorities are pursuing global cartels, often in parallel. The Auto parts, Maritime car carriers and Air cargo cartels for example were each subject to fines in ten or more different jurisdictions. The proliferation of authorities pursuing global cartels has contributed to the dramatic rise of the overall level of fines imposed for global cartel conduct. There are now nine global cartels for which penalties exceeding $1 billion have been imposed. In view of the increasingly crowded enforcement community, one would expect to see greater levels of inter-agency coordination in respect of not just the investigation but also the punishment of global cartels. However, attempts to coordinate the outcome of proceedings in order to reach an overall proportionate fine still appear to be both ad hoc and rare. Keywords: global cartels; international cartel enforcement; cartel fines; parallel enforcement; inter-agency coordination

Satu-Anneli Kauranen

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 1, Page 27 - 32

Niccolò Colombo

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 1, Page 40 - 44

Case T-105/17 HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission, Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 The General Court held that it could not perform an in-depth review on a key factor of the Decision that could have a significant effect on the fine imposed, which was sufficient grounds to annul the infringement Decision, notwithstanding the Commission’s potential finding of an anticompetitive conduct.

Michele Giannino

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 1, Page 36 - 39

Case A519 Affidamento diretto del servizio di trasporto pubblico ferroviario nel Veneto (Veneto Rail Transport), Decision of the Italian Competition Authority of 31 July 2019

Georgia Tzifa, Marilena Nteve, Lukas Šimas

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 3, Page 223 - 230

Case C-10/18 P Mowi ASA v European Commission, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 March 2020 The Court upholds the imposition of separate fines for an infringement of the notification and standstill obligations under EU merger control

Francesco Rizzuto, Monika Ewa Lynch

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 3, Page 236 - 242

Case C-617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 The Court of Justice confirms the continued importance of national competition law as a distinct legal interest to protect. The infringing undertakings can face distinct penalties for the same infringement if an NCA can show that the harm caused to national and EU markets is distinct in its temporal and jurisdictional effects.

Tine Mišic, Valentina Pavušek

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 4, Page 314 - 319

Niccolò Colombo, Alejandra Garcia Hoyos

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 4, Page 328 - 332

Case T-758/14 RENV Infineon Technologies v Commission, Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 Following a referral from the Court of Justice, the General Court, in exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, held that the Commission did not take sufficient account of the individual participation of Infineon in the single overall agreement and reduced the fine by an additional 5% on account of mitigating circumstances.

András Tóth

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 2 (2018), Issue 4, Page 258 - 270

This article provides a practical overview of the most recent and interesting developments arising from the national enforcement of EU competition law. It is not only the preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union that highlight interesting competition cases taking place at national level. For example, as will be discussed in this article, other important developments such as the recognition of compliance programmes and the first pricing algorithm case also occurred at national level. It appears that national competition authorities (NCAs) are more opened to ensure consistency between competition and other policies, such as the protection of personal data (eg the Facebook case in Germany) and the promotion of small and medium sized enterprises. NCAs can more rapidly adapt to the changing competition policy context, as can be seen, for example, in their treatment of mergers involving targets not possessing high enough turnover but having significant market potential. The ECN+ Directive provides NCAs with a minimum common tool-kit and effective enforcement powers for the implementation of EU antitrust rules in many important areas. However, there are still significant areas (eg regarding the admissibility of criminal evidence and multiple filings) where further improvements would be desirable in the future. Keywords: Data Driven Economy, Multiple Merger Filing, Admissability of Criminal Evidences, European Competition Network (ECN), Cross-Border Enforcement of Competition Fines