Category Archives: Cartels

Posts on cases or issues involving anti-competitive agreements or coordination between competitors. 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

    Mind the Gap: Another Hurdle for Damages Claims in the EEA?

    Guest post by Elisabeth Lian Haugsdal

    Photo: Kevin George/Shutterstock

    We are delighted to publish a post written by Elisabeth Lian Haugsdal. Elisabeth currently works as a Legal Officer at EFTA in Brussels and is one of the true experts on the peculiarities of the EEA Agreement, the agreement that extends the effect of most EU legislation to include Norway and the other EFTA countries (except Switzerland). As always, the views expressed on this blog are personal and covered by the disclaimer. Read more

    The Danish fine regime is changing gear

    On 8 November 2016, Opel Danmark A/S accepted a fine of DKK 8.25m for resale price maintenance. The fine is more than four times bigger than the previous highest fine issued for resale price maintenance. The fine shows that the amendment of the Danish Competition Act in 2013 whereby the fine level was dramatically increased is finally becoming real. According to the amendment, the fine level should be significantly raised as the Act recommends that fines should be raised by a factor of 10. However, since the Act was amended, no cases concerning the new regime have been seen. The Opel case is changing this. Read more