Update on competition investigations in European Union and France (January – September 2016)

This article provides an update on the rules applying to antitrust investigations carried out by DG COMP and the French competition authorities. The new rules, case law and agencies’ initiatives in that field over the past nine months are covered. At the EU level, the article provides comments on the Heidelberg and Goldfish cases concerning the motivation requirement applying to requests for information and the ability of DG COMP to use secret recordings as evidence. At the French level, the article covers the Constitutional Council decision in the Brenntag case concerning the lack of immediate action available against requests for information as well as the Darty and SRR cases.

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. 1. At the end of 2015, the Commission opened a consultation to examine the means available to national authorities to apply EU competition law. Very directly, this consultation began with the observation that Regulation 1/2003 did not address the means and instruments on the basis of which national authorities apply European law and that it was therefore necessary to ensure that this situation did not undermine the effectiveness and consistency of the application of European law. 2. The first results of this consultation were announced in May 2016 [1], while the European Parliament published a report commissioned by its Committee on Economic Affairs which

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.