Hogan Lovells (Paris)

Pierre Chellet

Hogan Lovells (Paris)
Associate

Pierre Chellet is an associate in the Paris office of Hogan Lovells. He advises on all aspects of EU and French competition law. He helps clients in investigations and proceedings before competition and regulatory authorities in France and at the EU level. From August 2020 to July 2021 he was an Academic Assistant at the College of Europe in Bruges, European Legal Studies Department. Pierre Chellet holds an LL.M in EU Law from the College of Europe (2018-19 Manuel MARÍN promotion) and a Master’s degree in Economic Law from Sciences Po (Paris). He also studied public affairs at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). Prior to joining the College of Europe, Pierre Chellet interned in several French and international law firms in Paris, where he focused on EU and French competition law.

Linked authors

Hogan Lovells (Madrid)
Hogan Lovells (London)
Hogan Lovells (London)
Hogan Lovells (Washington)
Hogan Lovells (Washington)

Articles

1019 Bulletin

Victor Levy, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice agrees with AG Kokott and confirms that Art. 102 TFEU permits the reviewing of completed mergers where the concentration did not reach the requisite control thresholds (Towercast)

297

On 16 March 2023, in a preliminary ruling issued in the Towercast case, the Court of Justice ruled that a concentration below national merger control thresholds could be subject to a review under article 102 TFUE. This much awaited judgment is a revival of the 1973 Court of Justice’s (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice confirms that all parties which were harmed by anticompetitive conduct may claim for damages, irrespective of whether they themselves were active on the relevant market (Otis / Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung / Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen / Kone / ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge / Land Oberösterreich...)

29

Brief summary of facts In 2007, the Commission found that several elevator and escalator manufacturers had formed a cartel in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In 2008, the Austrian Courts reached the same finding regarding the Austrian market. In 2010, the Land (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice rules that damage felt by indirect purchasers of products effected by a cartel qualifies as direct damage and accordingly the local jurisdiction is competent to assess follow on damage claims (Tibor-Trans / DAF Trucks)

30

Brief summary of facts In 2016, the Commission found that fifteen trucks manufacturers, including German based DAF Trucks, had colluded to distort competition in the European Economic Area. Tibor-Trans, a Hungarian national and international freight company, had purchased several trucks to (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice determines that the Portuguese limitation period for competition damages lawsuits undermines the ability of claimants to enforce their claims and thus conflict with the principle of effectiveness (Cogeco Communications / Sport TV Portugal / Controlinveste-SGPS / NOS-SGPS)

27

Brief summary of facts In June 2013, the Portuguese Competition Authority (“PCA”) found that Sport TV Portugal had abused of its dominant position in the market of premium sports TV channels. This behaviour infringed national law and Article 102 TFEU. Consequently, the PCA imposed a fine of (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice confirms that corporate restructuring will not vitiate a follow on damage claims arising as a result of a cartel, clarifying that the notion of an undertaking goes beyond the concept of a legal personality (City of Vantaa / Skanska Industrial Solutions / NCC Industry / Asfaltmix)

34

Brief summary of facts In 2004, the Finish Competition Authority found that several companies had participated in a cartel relating to asphalt in Finland between 1994 and 2002. It proposed fines which were ultimately adopted by the Finish Supreme Administrative Court in 2009. In the (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice distinguishes jurisdiction clauses in the context of cartel and of abuse of a dominant position claims (eBizcuss.com / Apple)

27

Brief summary of facts eBizcuss became an Apple authorized reseller in 2002 pursuant to an agreement which included the following jurisdiction clause: “This Agreement and the corresponding relationship between the parties shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice confirms that a claimant in a follow on damages claim from an abuse of dominance infringement may litigate in the jurisdiction of the causal event of the harm or where the harm materialised (flyLAL / ŽIA Valda / VA Reals / Air Baltic / Riga Airport)

91

Brief summary of facts In 2006, the Latvian Competition Council found that Riga Airport had abused of its dominant position by applying discriminatory discounts to the benefit of two airlines, including Latvian Air Baltic. flyLAL was a Lithuanian airline which faced fierce competition from (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice clarifies that national courts shall take decisions of the EU Commission as prima facie evidence (Gasorba / Josefa Rico Gil / Antonio Ferrándiz González / Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos)

32

Brief summary of facts Repsol, a Spanish oil company, concluded gas stations lease agreements for a duration of 25 years. The Commission opened an investigation against Repsol and expressed its concerns that the lease agreements could breach Article 101 TFEU and foreclose the market. (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice rules that a court in any given Member State will retain its jurisdiction when assessing claims for damages arising from a cartel even where the anchor claim is withdrawn, provided there is no evidence of collusion to bring the case before the aforementioned court (CDC / Hydrogen Peroxide / Evonik Degussa / Chemoxal / Edison / Akzo Nobel / Solvay / Kemira Oyj / FMC Foret)

47

Brief summary of facts In 2006, the Commission sanctioned various companies for participating in a cartel relating to hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate. The Commission found that infringing companies had exchanged information, limited production, allocated markets and fixed prices in (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice rules that a company may invoke an "umbrella effect" when claiming for damages against a cartel notwithstanding the fact that national law fails to provide for such claims (ÖBB-Infrastruktur / Kone / Otis / Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen / Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung / ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge)

44

Brief summary of facts In 2007, the Commission found that several elevator and escalator manufacturers had formed a cartel in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In 2008, the Austrian Courts reached the same finding regarding the Austrian market. ÖBB-Infrastruktur, a (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice determines that a claimant against a cartel in the gas insulated switchgear market failed to demonstrate that access to documents filed by the defendants during leniency proceedings are necessary for a private enforcement claim (EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg / Siemens / ABB)

35

Brief summary of facts In 2007, the Commission sanctioned various companies, including Siemens and ABB, for participating in a cartel relating to gas insulated switchgear. Anti-competitive behaviours included bid-rigging, price fixing and market sharing. EnBW is an energy-distribution (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice rules that Austrian law does not strike an adequate balance between the rights of claimants seeking follow on damages and the rights of defendants to keep confidential their leniency agreements (VDMT / Donau Chemie / Donauchem / DC Druck-Chemie Süd / Brenntag Austria / ASK Chemicals)

49

Brief summary of facts On 26 March 2010, the Oberlandesgericht Wien sanctioned several companies for infringing Article 101 TFEU on the market for wholesale distribution of printing chemicals. Fines amounted to EUR 1.5 million. Although companies appealed, this decision was upheld. The (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice preliminarily rules that the German Competition Authority should grant access to leniency documents to a claimant seeking to damages as a result of a cartel in the market for décor paper (Pfleiderer)

24

Brief summary of facts On 21 January 2008, the Bundeskartellamt sanctioned three manufacturers of décor paper and five individuals for their involvement in price-fixing and out-put limitation agreements. Fines amounted to EUR 62 million. Pfleiderer was a purchaser of décor paper. It (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice confirms Art. 101 TFEU requires that Member State permit claims for damages arising from a cartel and that the principle of effectiveness requires that national procedural rules do not unfairly hinder the exercise of these rights (Vincenzo Manfredi / Antonio Cannito / Nicolò Tricarico / Pasqualina Murgulo / Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni / Fondiaria Sai / Assitalia)

54

Brief summary of facts In 2000, the Italian Competition Authority (“AGCM”) found that various Italian insurance companies had colluded and exchanged information to coordinate their prices on civil liability auto insurance premiums. Several customers brought actions for compensation before (...)

François Brunet, Pierre Chellet The EU Court of Justice determines that to deny a private enforcement claim under Art. 101 TFEU would deny the treaty provision of direct effect (Crehan / Courage)

36

Brief summary of facts In 1991, Mr Crehan, entered into two 20 years agreements with Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd for the leasing of two pubs. The lease agreement included the obligation for Mr. Crehan to buy beer exclusively from Courage Ltd. However, Mr Crehan could not compete with (...)

5742 Review

Eric Paroche, Pierre Chellet Reform: The European Commission adopts the 2023 Simplification Package and aims at reforming merger control proceedings with increased efficiency and flexibility and revolves around a revised Merger Control Implementing Regulation, a new Notice on simplified procedure, and a Communication on the transmission of documents

181

Since the adoption of regulation no. 139/2004, the European Commission (the “Commission”), has been trying to strike the right balance between (i) reviewing transactions that may have an impact on competition within the internal market, and (ii) limiting the administrative burden on companies. (...)

Eric Paroche, Pierre Chellet Referrals: The French Competition Authority, acting on a referral from the European Commission, authorises a merger between two wholesaler-distributors subject to a behavioural commitment and, on this occasion, three years after its opinion on pharmaceutical distribution, clarifies its analysis of the activities of wholesaler-distributors, both at national and local level (McKesson Europe / Phoenix)

115

On July 7, 2021, U.S. pharmaceutical distribution group McKesson announced the sale of most of its European operations to its German competitor Phoenix. Commission clears the transaction and refers the analysis of the French markets to the French Competition Authority The scope of the (...)

Pierre Chellet, Eric Paroche Theory of Harm: The General Court of the European Union clarifies the principles applicable to the analysis of mergers which have both vertical and horizontal effects (Wieland)

302

On 18 May 2022, the General Court of the European Union rejected Wieland-Werke’s appeal against the European Commission decision to prohibit its proposed acquisition of (i) Aurubis Rolled Products (“ARP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aurubis, and (ii) Schwermetall, a 50/50 joint-venture (...)

Eric Paroche, Pierre Chellet Interim measures: The European Commission strikes back with interim measures after two companies implemented their merger in violation of the standstill obligation (Illumina / Grail)

215

The Illumina/Grail (Case M.10188) saga continues before the European Commission [the “Commission”] and the General Court with fierce confrontation in relation to jurisdictional issues and standstill obligation. This transaction was already set to become an unprecedented case as it is the (...)

Eric Paroche, Pierre Chellet Jurisdictional thresholds: The European Commission publishes a Staff Working Document on evaluation of procedural and jurisdictional aspects of EU merger control and launches an initial impact assessment

147

In March 2021, announcement that the European Commission [the “Commission”] would review its assessment of referrals under Article 22 of Regulation n° 139/2004 [the “Merger Regulation”] has attracted much attention from practitioners and academics. Under this new approach, the Commission will (...)

Eric Paroche, Pierre Chellet Notion of undertaking: The General Court of the European Union confirms in all respects the decision of the European Commission prohibiting a merger among several cement companies, clarifies the notion of undertaking concerned where the acquisition is carried out by a full-function joint venture and confirms a broad interpretation of the criterion of substantial effect on trade between Member States (HeidelbergCement)

390

Case law on merger control is all the more scrutinised as litigation is rare. However, the year 2020 has enabled the Court of First Instance to rule on several occasions on the application of Regulation 139/2004 by the European Commission in prohibition decisions. In particular, by the CK (...)

Books

Statistics


6761
Total visits

281.7
Number of readings per contribution

24
Number of contributions

Author's ranking
408th
In number of contributions
1442th
In number of visits
5716th
In average number of visits
Send a message