Category Archives: Cooperation

Posts on cases or issues involving anti-competitive agreements or coordination. Assessed under Article 101 TFEU and corresponding national provisions.

2016: This happened in the Nordics

Here’s our roundup of the most interesting competition law developments in the Nordic countries in 2016.

Mergers

  • Non-compete clause. The Stockholm District Court found against the Swedish Competition Authority that a non-compete clause lasting five years did not constitute an infringement of competition rules by object, and was further unable to identify anti-competitive effects. As a result, the Court refused to impose the fines of around EUR 5 million that the SCA had requested. The Patent and Market Court will hear the authority’s appeal in September 2017.
  • Read more

    Danish court increases fine level

    Just before Christmas, the Danish Court of Holstebro fined the company Canett A/S for infringing the Danish Competition Act. The ruling was the first under the new Danish fine regime, which is designed to increase the fine level by a factor of 10. The Canett case did not go that far but the fine level was heavily increased, and other businesses have been warned that fines for infringing the Danish Competition Act are about to reach a new level. Canett was fined DKK 600,000 for instructing one dealer to apply binding resale prices.   Read more

    HELSINKI COURT OF APPEAL REJECTS DAMAGES CLAIMS AGAINST SUCCESSORS

    A street, motor-way, landscape, sky

    Photo: Shutterstock

    Liability based on the concepts of a single economic entity or economic succession is well-establish in competition law. The Helsinki Court of Appeal’s judgments in the asphalt cartel follow-on damages cases on 20 October 2016 are, however, a reminder that competition law concepts on liability do not necessarily apply in the follow-on damages cases which are subject to a civil law assessment.

    Majority of claims were dismissed Read more

    Missing a Moving Target: Stockholm District Court rules on non-compete clauses

    removal

    The Stockholm District Court has found against the Swedish Competition Authority (SCA) that a non-compete clause lasting five years did not constitute an infringement of competition rules by object, and has further been unable to identify anti-competitive effects. As a result, the Court has refused to impose the fines of around EUR 5 million that the SCA had requested. The SCA announced on the same day the judgment was published that it will appeal the decision to the Market Court. Read more

    Consortium, cartel or something in between?

    The Danish Competition Appeals Board (“CAB”) has upheld the Danish Competition Council’s (“DCC”) decision that a consortium infringed the Danish Competition Act. The CAB also confirmed the DCC’s conclusion that a consortium was indeed a “by object” infringement. In the CAB’s view, the consortium agreement restricted competition by its very nature. Yet, the CAB at the same time concluded that the consortium was not a “classic cartel” and that the agreement was not a market sharing agreement or a price fixing agreement. By introducing a “classic cartel” (and “non-classic cartel”), the CAB’s decision provides more uncertainty to the legal assessment of a consortium agreement. Read more