Philippe-Emmanuel Partsch

On 29 april 2021, following the release of the widely commented european commission guidance on art. 22 of the EU merger regulation (eumr), the Luxembourg Competition Council published a statement on the recent policy change. In addition to explaining the key characteristics of the European (...)

ON 26 MARCH 2021, THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (THE “COMMISSION”) PUBLISHED “COMMISSION GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE REFERRAL MECHANISM SET OUT IN ARTICLE 22 OF THE MERGER REGULATION TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF CASES”. The impact of the document comes close to a paradigm shift for merger (...)

I. Introduction On 18 November 2020, at the end of an eventful 2020, the Luxembourg Competition Council announced the adoption of “the most important decision that the authority has ever taken, in terms of content and the amount of the penalty”. Indeed, the imposition of an aggregate fine (...)

For the first time, EU and national competition authorities over the last few years have expanded their scrutiny to the financial sector as a whole (banks, financial markets, insurance). All areas of financial services appear to be on their radar, as exemplified by investigations looking into syndicated loans, credit cards, benchmarks (such as LIBOR), commission rates in asset management and coinsurance. As this article will explain, all kinds of agreements and practices have been investigated and penalised by competition authorities in Europe over the past few years. Competition authorities have certainly not shied away from assessing sophisticated types of financial operation or scheme. They have also examined the market conduct of investment banks (with cases involving rate and index manipulation and suspicions of possible collusions on sovereign bonds negotiations) as well as issues surrounding access to the Financial Technologies (“FinTech”) market. Competition authorities have also been concerned by banks’ and payment systems’ attempts to obstruct access to these markets by new players on the market.

THE GENERAL COURT’S JUDGEMENT IN FFT: A CRITIQUE* In its judgments on 24 September in the FFT and Starbucks cases, the EU General Court gave its first view on the European Commission’s tax ruling decisions. These decisions were novel and complex in that they sought to assess whether the tax (...)

I. Introduction Over the past ten years, the Luxembourg real estate market has experienced record growth: from Q2 2010 to Q2 2021, average prices for real estate ownership increased by 110.8%. With a residential home ownership rate of more than 70%, these trends have benefitted not only the (...)

Since 3 December 2018, EU Regulation 2018/302 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market has been directly effective in the European Union. It expressly (...)

The source of this dispute is a Commission decision not to raise objections to the measure notified by Polish authorities concerning the aid granted to Poczta Polska ("PP") in the form of compensation for the net cost of fulfilling its universal postal service obligations for the period (...)

Apart from the first plea alleging infringement of the exclusive competence of Member States in the field of direct taxation, which would preclude the Commission’s control of State aid, and which was dismissed by the General Court (“GC”), the object of the judgment delivered was technical. It (...)

In June 2018, the Luxembourg Competition Council published a decision regarding forms of cooperation between competitors involving price fixing, one of the most manifest and serious restrictions of competition. The decision concerned a group of supermarkets who decided to market certain (...)

In June 2018, the Luxembourg Competition Council published a decision regarding a cooperation between competitors involving price fixing, one of the most manifest and serious restrictions of competition. In the decision “Webtaxi”, the Competition Council found that a taxi reservation centre (...)

On 7 June, the Luxembourg Competition Council exempted an agreement between Benelux Taxis, Inter-Taxis and other Taxi companies who jointly use the Webtaxi reservation centre for taking bookings from customers. It is the Competition Council’s first decision exempting an agreement or practice (...)

By judgment on April 26, 2018, the Court of Justice put an end to proceedings concerning a measure of support for the development of digital television in a region of Spain with a low level of urbanisation. As a result of this judgment, the development in question cannot be considered a SGEI (...)

Facts This preliminary ruling arose following a complaint lodged with the Portuguese Competition Authority by Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA (“MEO”) alleging that GDA, a non-profit-making collecting cooperative which manages the rights of artists and performers, had abused its (...)

This preliminary ruling relates to a tendering procedure launched by an Italian public authority, Arpacal, for the award for a public service contract for insurance. Two Lloyd’s ‘syndicates’ participated in the call for tenders. Their tenders were both signed by an agent of Lloyd’s General (...)

Application of State aid and competition law rules to the health sector reinforced by the General Court* The General Court has annulled a decision of the EU Commission finding no state aid because the recipient of the measure, a Slovak health insurance body was not an undertaking. (...)

Luxembourg still has no national merger control system meaning that, contrary to all other countries in the EU, mergers, acquisitions and creations of joint ventures potentially raising competition concerns in Luxembourg can proceed without the prior clearance by (and therefore prior (...)

EasyJet Airline Co. Ltd is a British air carrier which lodged a complaint with the EU Commission that the charges set by Luchthaven Schiphol NV were discriminatory and excessive and amounted to an abuse of a dominant position in the airport services market according to Article 102 TFEU. In its (...)

Since the adoption of the Luxembourg Competition Law in 2004, the Luxembourg Competition Council («the Council»), an independent administrative authority, has been in charge of enforcing the competition law provisions relating to agreements and abuses of a dominant position when a market in (...)

Facts On 22 July 2010, the Luxembourg Competition Inspectorate ("Inspection de la concurrence") requested two notaries public to provide information pursuant to Article 13(3) of the 2004 Competition Act ("Loi du 17 mai 2004 relative à la concurrence"). According to the latter, the (...)

FACTS OF THE DECISION The Luxembourg Competition Council (“the Competition Council”) issued a first decision on 10 December 2010 (“the Decision”) sanctioning Coditel under Article 5 of the Luxembourg competition Act (the “Competition Act”) on the grounds it abused its dominant position on (...)

On 10 December 2010, the Luxembourg Competition Council (“the Council”) has adopted the decision N°2010-FO-02 providing an assessment of the competition law situation on the TV cabled distribution market. Beside a previous decision where the President of the Council has imposed “interim (...)

On 10 December 2010, the Luxembourg Competition Council (“the Council”) has adopted the decision N°2010-FO-03 providing an assessment of the competition law situation on the tobacco products wholesale sales market. This decision, which does not sanction any undertakings active in this market, (...)

On 5 March 2010, the Luxembourg Competition Council (Conseil de la concurrence) released its first decision on the merits by which it imposed fines on seven companies which were sanctioned for coordinating between themselves when submitting applications for public bids. This decision provides (...)

1. Background of the case In 2007, the Luxembourg Competition Council (“the Council”) received a complaint from a small distributor of domestic fuel (“Rock Fernand distributions”) who wanted to have fuel storage capacity in the river port of Mertert in order to avoid the cost of passing (...)

The Luxembourg Competition Council has released a termination decision on 2 July 2009 (Décision n° 2009-FO-01) removing suspicions of competition law infringements by the Groupe de Presse Nicolas. Generally speaking, the case is interesting in the sense it shows how market players active in (...)

Facts of the case 1. Oxycure markets an oxygen concentrator, which generates medical oxygen on the spot and hence constitutes an innovative and a more efficient alternative to medical oxygen distributed in bottles. As the oxygen concentrator works on electricity, Oxycure’s clients need (...)

Facts surrounding the case 1. On 15 March 2008, the Ministers’ Council of the government of Brussels-Capital Region invited tenders for the award of a concession for the setting-up of an automated and publicly accessible bicycle rental system in the Brussels-Capital Region for a nominal fee. (...)

Facts of the case 1. On 31 October 2007, the City-Region (Stadsregio ) of Rotterdam, regrouping several local authorities in the Rotterdam region, has suspended an EU-wide public tender procedure. It did so in order to anticipate a forthcoming amendment of the Dutch regulatory framework for (...)

Background of the case 1. The flooring works in the new court buildings in the city of Luxembourg are still the object of the most prolific cartel procedure in the recent history of Luxembourg competition law. The case has already led to several decisions while the cartel investigations are (...)

Case 1. On 22 November 2002, the Municipality of Maastricht has awarded directly, i.e., without any public tender procedure a contract to the undertaking Q-Park for the renovation and operation of several parking lots for a period of 30 years. P1, one of Q-Park’s competitors, challenged (...)

Facts of the case 1. On 25 January 2008, the Belgian Competition Council (Conseil de la concurrence) has condemned VEBIC, a professional association of Flemish bakeries, for having established a common cost index inciting Flemish bakeries to increase their prices in violation with the (...)

Facts of the case 1. In 2007, a dispute arose between Base, one of the three main mobile telephone operators in Belgium, and Belgacom, the Belgian incumbent on the fixed telephone market. In a decision of 11 August 2006, the Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (...)

1. On 29 February 2008 the Luxembourg Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of SMEs have made public a state of the play of the “Action Plan against Excessive Inflation” (Plan d’action contre une inflation excessive) of the Luxembourg government, in which competition law seems to play (...)

On 5 September 2007 the Competition Council (“Conseil de la concurrence”) has handed down a decision in a case between a professional association of car assessment experts, OEIPA and Mr Carlo Schmit, a Luxembourg car assessment expert. In 1997 OEIPA refused the latter to become a member (...)

On 5 September 2007 the Competition Council (“Conseil de la concurrence”) has handed down a decision in a case between a professional association of car damage experts, OEIPA and Le Foyer Assurances S.A. (“Le Foyer”), one of the principal car insurances companies in Luxembourg. Le Foyer puts (...)

On 23 April 2007 the new Luxembourg national competition authority that has been created in 2004, the Competition Council (“Conseil de la concurrence”), has handed down its first decision on the merits of a competition case brought before it. The Competition Council has chosen to be very (...)

Factual background On 23 April 2007 the commercial court of Liège (“Tribunal de commerce”) handed down a decision in a case between the Swedish cycling team Green Cycle Associates (“GCA”) and Amaury Sport Organisation (“ASO”). ASO is a French undertaking that organises several major cycling (...)

Facts of the case In October 2006 the Luxembourg public undertaking Entreprise des Postes et Télécommunications (hereinafter “EPT”) launched a cessation action on the basis of the Luxembourg 2002 Trade Practices Act (“loi du 30 juillet 2002 réglementant certaines pratiques commerciales”) (...)

Facts of the case 1. In Luxembourg, Article 6(2) of the Competition Act (loi du 17 mai 2004 relative à la concurrence) entrusts the Competition Council (Conseil de la Concurrence), an independent administrative body, with the public enforcement of Articles 3 to 5 prohibiting cartels and (...)

Article 2-1 of the 2004 Luxembourg Competition Act (“loi du 17 mai 2004 relative à la concurrence”) introduced the principle that competition between undertakings determines prices. This provision accordingly abolished the general and significant price controlling powers of the Luxembourg (...)

Under Irish competition law certain offences (in essence infringements analogous to infringements of Articles 81 and 82 EC) attract criminal sanctions. Last February saw the criminal conviction of a businessman involved in the illegal fixing of prices in the motor vehicle sector, the first (...)

Background This case deals with alleged anti-competitive practices in the context of a waste disposal project, “SuperDrecksKëscht 2” (now “SuperDrecksKëscht fir Betriber”). The initiators of this project were the Administration de l’Environnement (“Environmental Administration”) within the (...)

Case Koepfler s.à r.l. (“Koepfler”) operated on an independent basis one of the petrol stations of Aral Luxembourg S.A. (“Aral”), a subsidiary of the German petrol group Aral. Aral and Koepfler had concluded an agency agreement in this respect in 1984. Pursuant to this agreement Koepfler had (...)

In 1993 Coditel, the cable TV distributor in several Luxembourg municipalities, acquired the TV distribution network in the Luxembourg municipality of Leudelange from a small undertaking. Upon this acquisition Coditel imposed its conditions on the subscribers to the former network operator and (...)

The undertaking Univers du Cuir Belgique (“UCB”) has taken over the franchising agreement that Belgian Comfort Company (“BCC”) had as a franchisor with Cuir Center Luxembourg (“CCL”), franchisee. UCB noticed that CCL did not respect the non-compete obligations imposed on it by the agreement (...)

The undertakings Wintergarten Feddersen and Soluver concluded in 1985 a franchising agreement for the distribution of verandas. In 1987 Wintergarten Feddersen, the franchisor, brought proceedings against Soluver, the franchisee, before the Tribunal de commerce (“Commercial Court”) of (...)