In Brussels, the number of decisions imposing fines for a breach of Article 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is increasing, compensating last year’s decrease due to the pandemic. This year, the Commission issued 15 decisions, whereas it had imposed fines in six decisions in 2020. As in the previous year (2020), the Commission did not issue any decision imposing a fine for breach of Article 102 TFEU. As a result, the 15 decisions adopted this year all concern Article 101 TFEU (or Article 65 ECSC). Three of them concern the re-adoption of a decision following a partial annulment by the General Court.1 Most of the other decisions granted immunity or reduced the fine to take into account the cooperation of the undertaking concerned, pursuant to the leniency programme.2 Four decisions applied the settlement procedure in a cartel case.3

In Short The Background: The European Commission (Commission) recently unveiled long-awaited draft revisions to its Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and Vertical Guidelines. The…

In Brussels, the number of decisions imposing fines for a breach of Article 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is decreasing. This year the Commission issued only six decisions, whereas it had imposed fines in 10 decisions in 2019 and 12 in 2018. Obviously, this decrease may be explained in part by the pandemic. The Commission did not issue any decision imposing a fine for a declared breach of Article 102 TFEU, which bears testimony to the continued success of the commitment procedure in abuse of dominance cases,1 despite the Commission’s readiness in 2019 to explore new options (in the form of fine reductions in exchange for acknowledging the infringement, cooperating with the probe and offering a remedy).2 As a result, the six decisions adopted this year all concern Article 101 TFEU.3 Two of them...

In Short The Situation: According to the European Commission (EC), an increasing number of competitively significant transactions have evaded merger notification because one or both of the…

In Short The Development: The European Commission (EC) recently released two long-awaited legislative proposals, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), that would…

The Law on Fines Imposed in EU Competition Proceedings: Still Time for a Refresh of the Guidelines Éric Barbier de La Serre, Éric Barbier de La Serre Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Eileen Lagathu Eileen Lagathu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Volume 11, Issue 9, November 2020, Pages 537–550, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpaa041 Published: 03 September 2020 Article history Received: 24 May 2020 Revision received: 24 May 2020 Accepted: 13 July 2020 Published: 03 September 2020

In Short The Development: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the European Commission (Commission) violated UPS's rights of defense when it failed to provide UPS with the final…

In Brussels, the number of decisions imposing fines for a breach of Article 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) increased significantly in the last full year of Commissioner Vestager’s first mandate (with twelve decisions in 2018 against seven in 2017). The Commission issued three decisions imposing fines in relation to a declared breach of Article 102 TFEU,1 including a new fine for Google that follows the one imposed in the 2017 Google Shopping decision.2 These decisions are a reminder that, despite the success of the commitment procedure, enforcement through fines is still alive. A fine may be inevitable if commitments are not possible, or if a company refuses to negotiate or negotiates unsuccessfully with the Commission regarding an appropriate remedy (as in the BEH gas case, in which the Commission and BEH spent three years negotiating remedies).

In December 2018, the French Competition Authority (FCA) published a notice clarifying the FCA's settlement procedure in competition cases (Notice). The FCA's General Rapporteur may offer…

Journal Article The Law on Fines Imposed in EU Competition Proceedings: Converging Towards Hazier Lines Get access Eric Barbier de La Serre, Eric Barbier de La Serre Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Eileen Lagathu Eileen Lagathu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Volume 9, Issue 7, September 2018, Pages 459–475, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpy032 Published: 23 June 2018 Article history Received: 23 March 2018 Revision received: 19 April 2018 Published: 23 June 2018

A decision prohibiting a concentration must be annulled if the notifying party was not able to submit observations on significant variations of the econometric model on which the Commission relied.

The recent refocussing of the Courts on the key concept of 'undertaking' has led to a significant change in the application of the aggravating circumstance of repeat offence to parent companies held liable for infringements perpetrated by their subsidiaries.The year 2015 also marks the first judgment delivered on a settlement case.

This week, the French Competition Authority (FCA) imposed a EUR 80 million fine on the Altice Group, a major French telecommunications operator, for implementing two transactions before…

Ask a lawyer to name the most basic procedural right, he/she will likely reply: “the rights of defence”. To many lawyers, these rights appear – maybe even before access to justice – as the most…

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently ruled that dawn raids carried out at the premises of two French construction companies by the DGCCRF (French Department for Competition,…

The year 2014 marks a departure from the Commission's recent practice of closing Article 102 TFEU cases by a commitment decision, with three decisions imposing fines for an abuse of dominance. As regards Article 101 TFEU, 2014 is a record year with eight out of ten cartel cases closed involving a settlement procedure. The Court of Justice has refocussed its approach to fines on the core concept of ‘undertaking’, in particular by fleshing out and clarifying the limits of joint and several liability for the payment of the fine. It also referred to the concept of ‘undertaking’ to identify the beneficiary of a leniency application and to apply the ten per cent ceiling in a manner that is consistent with attribution of liability under Article 101 TFEU. Notwithstanding the intricacies of reasoning of the Court in these cases, one of the most complex and contentious issues for the setting of fines remains the calculation of the value of sales.

In 2013 the fines imposed by the Commission were, as usual, significant. The lack of a record-setting decision is only apparent: had it not been granted immunity, UBS would have been imposed by far the highest fine in history (around € 2.5 billion) in Yen interest rate derivatives. In Microsoft (Tying), the Commission imposed the first fine — and not an insignificant one (€ 561 million) — for a breach of a commitment given in an Article 102 TFEU case. At the judicial level, 2013 may well be remembered as the year when the EU Courts significantly strengthened the review that they exercise on fines. Greater consistency is needed not only at the margin of the case law, but also on fundamental issues such as the individualisation of gravity, the identification of the entities that benefit from an immunity application made by a subsidiary, and the methodology applied by the EU Courts when they exercise their full jurisdiction.

Journal Article The Law on Fines Imposed in EU Competition Proceedings: Faster, Higher, Harsher Get access Éric Barbier de La Serre, Éric Barbier de La Serre EBARBIERDELASERRE@JONESDAY.COM Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Eileen Lagathu Eileen Lagathu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Volume 4, Issue 4, August 2013, Pages 325–344, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpt033 Published: 09 July 2013

In 2011, there has been a slight slackening of the Commission's crack down on cartels with only four cartel decisions issued and no fines imposed (whether per case or per undertaking) that ranked amongst the 10 highest fines in the history of EU cartel enforcement. On the judicial front, the General Court issued its first rulings on the application of the 2006 Guidelines. The Court provided important interpretations concerning the assessment of gravity, as well as major notions such as those of relevant sales, repeat infringement, obstruction, ringleadership, and joint and several liability.