Antitrust, State aid & competition

Competition both at the European and the national level

The Firm provides qualified assistance in the interpretation and application of European Union antitrust law (cartels and anti-competitive practices, abuse of dominant position and State aid). The Firm has substantial experience in this area in proceedings before the courts of the European Union.

Types of problems

  • agreements, decisions and concerted practices
  • abuse of a dominant position
  • concentrations
  • State aid
  • unfair competition

Cases

To give an idea of ​​the type of cases represented by the Firm before the Tribunal and the Court of Justice of the European Union, we list the following "direct" procedures:

  • action for the annulment of a decision of the European Commission who deemed illegal State aid granted by Greece to companies active in the cement industry;
  • actions to challenge the declaration by the European Commission that some regional aid provided to reduce the environmental impact of steel plants was illegal;
  • actions to oppose fines imposed by the European Commission for anti-competitive agreements in the steel sector;
  • actions to have the statute of limitations apply to the power of the European Commission to collect fines awarded in a final judgment for anti-competitive agreements;
  • Action based on an arbitration clause to establish the illegality of the collection by the European Commission of a bank guarantee for the payment of a fine after the prescription of the Commission's power to require payment of such fine from the principal debtor.

The Firm also regularly prepares and introduces complaints before the European Commission:

  • against other companies suspected of breaking the rules of European competition law (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU);
  • against Member States suspected of having planned and / or implemented State aid incompatible with the European rules (Articles 107 and 108 TFEU).

For example, the Firm has filed complaints:

  • against German companies that had de facto imposed in the photovoltaic sector, contracts for the supply of silicon wafers containing clauses which were overly restrictive of competition or otherwise an abuse of their dominant position;
  • against Italy for having established an unfair and discriminatory system of financing the activity of its Competition Authority.