Global | Publication | November 2024
The European Commission (EC) is contemplating a revision of the procedural framework for antitrust investigations that is laid down in Regulation 1/20031 and Regulation 773/20042 (together, the “Regulations”). After collecting evidence from stakeholders, the EC published, as the final step in the evaluation, its Commission Staff Working Document on 5 September 2024.3 The overriding theme of the EC’s evaluation is to assess whether the Regulations, having come into force 20 years ago, are coherent with the digital age as well the objective to achieve a stronger single market.
We anticipate the following changes under the new EC mandate, expected to commence in December 2024:
The EC is likely to propose measures to tackle one of the most heavily criticized characteristics of antitrust proceedings – the length of investigations. Based on the aspects discussed in the Commission Staff Working Document, the most probable changes will involve streamlining the complaints process, the access to file process, the request for information process and the interim measures procedure.
The introduction of the Digital Markets Act4 (DMA) enhanced the procedural powers of the EC in ways that, in some instances, go beyond the EC’s powers under Regulation 1/2003. By way of example, the EC’s power to take statements under Article 19 of Regulation 1/2003 lags behind the EC’s power to carry out interviews and take statements under Article 22 of the DMA. Here, the main difference is that Regulation 1/2003 does not give the EC the possibility to impose financial penalties in connection with a company’s failure to provide the explanations requested in voluntary interviews, whereas the DMA does foresee this ability by virtue of Article 30(3) lit. f of the DMA. Another example is the EC’s power under Article 26(1) of the DMA to issue data retention orders alongside requests for information, whereas there is no such (preventive) possibility under Article 18 of Regulation 1/2003.5
Another tool likely to be up for a remodel will be the interim measures procedure under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003. So far, the EC only employed that tool under Regulation 1/2003 once in the Broadcom6case, which was ultimately resolved via a commitment decision.7 While it is unlikely that the EC will substantially lower the legal threshold for intervention, the procedure to issue interim measures – which currently does not differ much from a non-interim antitrust investigation under Article 7 of Regulation 1/2003 – will potentially be subject to a streamlining process (e.g., largely by waiving a written procedure and limiting the right to be heard for the company under investigation).
There is currently no clear timeline as to when the EC will a present a new proposal for revised Regulations. This is largely due to the ongoing procedure for appointment of the new EC, led by the EC’s President-elect Ursula von der Leyen. The Executive Vice-President and Commissioner-designate for the Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, Teresa Ribera, indicated in her confirmation hearing before the European Parliament that improving the speediness of enforcement and simplifying competition rules will be among her priorities.8 If appointed, it remains to be seen how quickly Ribera will be able to realise her (many) priorities.
Publication
On 24 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that the European Commission’s (the EC) 2009 decision, which imposed a (then record) €1.06 billion fine on Intel, was flawed as far as it found that loyalty rebates granted by Intel had anti-competitive effects.
Publication
The Dutch tax classification system for non-Dutch entities will undergo significant changes as of 1 January 2025.
Publication
In King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 719 the Court of Appeal held that the claimant sellers (the Sellers) were entitled to claim the deposits promised under sale contracts as a debt despite the defendant buyers’ (the Buyers) breach of contract, which had resulted in the non-fulfilment of a condition precedent to the payment of the deposits.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023
