SearchSearch results for: “january-anma.icu”

Unilever shows the need to assess evidence on lack of anti-competitive effects in abuse cases and how liability can extend across different levels of the supply chain. Dominant undertakings had better think twice when imposing policy on distributors.

The European Court of Justice has confirmed that the essential facilities test is limited to ‘pure’ access cases. Infringement of a regulatory access obligation must be assessed under the general framework for abuse of dominance.

On 26 January 2023, the ACM announced that its priorities for 2023 would be the energy transition, the digital economy, and sustainability. This agenda is unsurprising in view of the ACM’s recent policy statements and enforcement actions.

While 2022 revolved around new and improved regulatory tools, the focus in 2023 will be on putting these tools to use. More merger-related obligations, digital sector scrutiny and clarity on competition-law and consumer-law aspects is imminent.

In 2022, the ACM and the European Commission put the spotlight on the accuracy of companies’ sustainability claims. Notably, the ACM published several market studies and adopted commitment decisions concerning allegedly misleading sustainability claims.

2022 marks the second year of the EU Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Regulation, and the year in which legislators haven been busy shaping the Dutch national security screening regime and the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation.

Companies beware: completed non-notifiable concentrations do not necessarily go scot-free. An ex post abuse-of-dominance investigation by national competition authorities (NCA) could still loom.

The clock is ticking for companies to set the record straight on resale price maintenance (RPM). Retailers must be able to determine their own retail prices without any direct or indirect meddling by suppliers.

The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) informally accepted a commitment agreed by the partners of the Belgian Agro Food Chain Platform, limiting the possibility to contractually exclude the theory of change of circumstances.

Where is the line between openness and protectionism in the European single market? At both EU and national level, more and more protective barriers against foreign investors and acquirers have been created in the international competition.

Earlier this year, the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) entered into force to close a loophole in EU regulations aimed at creating a level playing field within the internal market.

The rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the discretionary powers of international sports associations to authorise alternative competitions show that the specifics of sports are no reason to tread lightly when applying EU competition rules.

2023 marked the near finale of the European Commission’s overhaul of its competition policy, leaving only a few loose ends to tie up in 2024/2025. It is now time to watch theory be put into practice by the competition authorities and at the courts.

Since 2021, Dutch rules against unfair trading practices, which implemented an EU Directive, apply to business-to-business relationships in agri-food supply chains. Enforcement by the ACM, initially slow, is now intensifying.

Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure.

On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision.