Category Archives: Cooperation

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

Taxi Shortcut: Norway’s Top Court Rules Joint Bid an Infringement by Object

Supreme Court follows EFTA Court ruling, but on different grounds

Photo: Dmitry Valberg

In a landmark judgment, Norway’s Supreme Court has ruled that joint bids submitted by two local taxi cooperatives for public contracts were anti-competitive ‘by object’. Since the two cooperatives could have bid separately for the contracts, they were considered as potential competitors.

The court unanimously held that no assessment was necessary of the likely effects of the parties’ choice to team up and bid jointly. Subject to the narrow exception for efficiencies – under the national provision corresponding to Art 101(3) TFEU – the joint bid was deemed a per se infringement. Read more

No bid-rigging in Swedish healthcare case

At the end of April this year, a Swedish case involving alleged procurement collusion in healthcare markets reached its final conclusion. In a reversal of fortunes for the Swedish Competition Authority (SCA), the Patent and Market Court of Appeal overturned the December 2015 judgment of the Stockholm District Court, exonerating the companies involved (Aleris Diagnostik, Capio S:t Görans Sjukhus*, Hjärtkärlgruppen i Sverige (HKG) (the Parties)). Read more

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