UK: SJ Berwin´s Community Week: A Weekly Summary Of Competition Law And Policy Developments Issue 430 3 July 2009

Last Updated: 6 July 2009
Article by SJ Berwin's EU & Competition Team


Advocate General criticises CFI Reasoning In GlaxoSmithKline Parallel Imports Case

In 1998 GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") introduced a dual pricing system in Spain with a view to deterring parallel trade.  Intermediaries in Spain were offered different prices for pharmaceutical products, depending on whether they intended to sell the products within Spain or to other EEA countries, with higher prices charged for export products. 

In May 2000 the European Commission ("Commission") determined that this dual pricing system infringed Article 81 EC by both object and effect, and that GSK had failed to establish that it met the requirements for exemption under Article 81(3) (specifically failure to prove a contribution to the promotion of technical progress).  GSK challenged the Commission's decision on a number of grounds. 

On appeal, the Court of First Instance ("CFI") agreed with the Commission that the system restricted competition by effect, but considered that the Commission had failed to prove an anti-competitive object.  It also annulled part of the decision on the basis that the Commission had failed to provide adequate reasoning in relation to GSK's submissions for exemption ( see Community Week issue 292).  Appeals to the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") were subsequently brought (on varying grounds) by GSK, the Commission, and two trade associations. 

The Advocate General ("AG") has now given her opinion.  Firstly the AG heavily critisises the CFI's approach to object based restrictions. The CFI had held that in order to assume an infringement by object, it must be possible to presume that final consumers will suffer.  The AG disagreed with this - finding that no analysis of the disadvantages for final consumers was required.  She considered that such an analysis was something to be taken into account when considering the application of Article 81(3), not before.  As such she concluded that the Commission had correctly found that that the dual pricing system had the object of restricting competition on the basis that it sought to restrict parallel trade.

However the AG supported the CFI's finding that the Commission did not adequately examine GSK's submissions in relation to Article 81(3).  She held that if a party supports an argument in a detailed manner, then the Commission may not refute such arguments in general terms.  In this case, GSK's submissions were supported by relevant economic and econometric data and the AG considered that the Commission should have dealt with them more extensively and in more detail.

AG opinions are not binding upon the ECJ and as such it remains to be seen whether these recommendations will be followed by the Court.  If the recommendations are followed, the focus of the debate as to whether dual pricing systems are legal under competition law is likely to shift to consideration of whether the conditions of Article 81(3) are met.  In particular whether, as argued in this case, such a system will enable greater R&D investment so as to offset the lost benefits of parallel trade.

Neelie Kroes Speaks On Restoring Long Term Viability To The UK Banking Sector

The European Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, stated, in her recent speech to the British Bankers Association, that tough action will be needed in order to restructure and resurrect Europe's banks. The Commissioner upheld her belief that the European Commission (the "Commission") should "follow its tried and tested state aid rules" such that restructuring should follow rescue aid with a view to reducing levels of state support. She stated that "the need for competitive market structures is stronger than ever" in order to restore long-term viability to the sector and warned that there was no money left for a second banking bailout.   

Since the so-called "credit crunch" started in the autumn of 2008, the established rules on state aid have come under strain. Under pressure from governments, the Commission has had to ensure competition is maintained in a market supported by multiple series of government bail-outs and nationalisations - going so far as to give the Competition Commissioner emergency powers to deal with such cases in a matter of days, rather than the usual number of weeks such approvals normally take to process. 

So far 70 state aid decisions in the banking sector have been made across Europe. Commissioner Kroes applauded the high levels of cooperation that had taken place between the governments, the banks and the Commission in order to process these decisions in such short time scales, a feature she hopes will continue. 

Looking forward, the Commissioner took the view that banks must be moved off state support in order to maintain a competitive single market and avoid possible distortions of competition.  She referred to Lloyds and RBS, two British banks part-owned by the British government, stating that they may well face "significant divestments" in their paths to full competitive health in order to limit their levels of state support. This approach would be in line with the Commission's approach in other jurisdictions, such as Germany.

As well as state aid enforcement, Commissioner Kroes also pushed for a culture change in the sector to assist in guarding against future problems.


easyJet Challenge To CAA Decision On Gatwick Price Controls Dismissed

On 26 June 2009 the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice (the "Court") dismissed easyJet's claim that the Civil Aviation Authority (the "CAA") had made a legally flawed decision to raise maximum price controls at Gatwick airport. 

The CAA must conduct five yearly reviews for airport charges for airports, including Gatwick, designated by the Secretary of State under the Airport Act 1986.  The procedure for these reviews is set out in the Civil Aviation (Economic Regulation of Airports) Regulations 1986 (the "Regulation").  In particular, the CAA must: first, give proper consideration to recommendations from the Competition Commission (the "CC") as to the level of the price cap; and second, allow 30 days, after the publication of the CC's recommendations, for airlines and airline operators to make their own representations.  

The CAA's decision, published in March 2008, increased Gatwick's maximum price per passenger by 21% to £6.79 until 2013.  This price can rise by no more than RPI inflation plus 2% each year. 

This decision particularly affected easyJet for two reasons.  First, easyJet represents 25% of Gatwick Airport's passengers.  Second, the company's low cost business model, premised on charging customers the lowest possible prices, is more acutely affected by cost increases than those of its competitors.

easyJet brought an action to challenge the CAA's decision on the grounds that it was unfair and unlawful.   The company contended that while the procedure under the Regulation was followed, it was not given the opportunity to comment on further representations made to the CAA by airline operator, BAA.  These representations, which remarked upon the impact of Government policy on security costs, fed into the CAA's decision to raise the maximum price per passenger beyond what had been suggested by the CC.

The Court, which emphasised its reluctance to exercise judicial review powers over expert regulatory bodies, dismissed the claim entirely.  The Court reached this conclusion on the following grounds in particular:

  • there was no evidence that the late submission by BAA of the revised security costs was in bad faith;
  • the CCA's adoption of a "constructive engagement" process for a period of two months, through which BAA made its representation, went further than the requirements of the Regulation;
  • the final figure was actually 70% of what BAA had requested; 
  • no other airline has complained about the price rise; and
  • provided that the CAA's reasons are not irrational or unreasonable, there is no presumption that the CC's recommendations must be followed.  

The Court therefore found that the CAA had acted fairly and lawfully, undertaking the steps necessary to fulfil its function. easyJet has been granted leave to appeal.

OFT Jurisdictional And Procedural Mergers Guidance Published

On 30 June 2009 the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") published the final version of its new jurisdictional and procedural guidance on mergers, replacing existing OFT guidance (in particular OFT 526).

The final version follows on from the OFT's draft guidance paper published in March 2008 (see issue 367 of Community Week) and aims to increase clarity and predictability.

There are a number of significant changes since the publication of the draft version including the following:

  • Definition of an enterprise: The Enterprise Act 2002 applies to "enterprises" ceasing to be distinct.  The OFT has amended the list of considerations it will take into account when assessing whether there is an enterprise - reducing the importance of a direct contract between the parties.  Instead it has placed greater focus on the effect of the merger looking particularly at any transfer of customer records, any transfer of employees under TUPE, and in particular any price premium paid that might indicate the transfer of goodwill. This final point will provide strong evidence of the transfer of an enterprise;
  • Material Influence: This section now takes into account the recent BSkyB / ITV Competition Appeal Tribunal judgment. The final guidance paper divides the issue of material influence into two key areas: shareholding and board representation.   A shareholding of more than 25 per cent in a target entity will lead to a presumption of material influence.  A shareholding of 15 per cent or more may still be investigated (the OFT may even investigate instances of smaller shareholding in exceptional circumstances).  The strength of board representation in influencing policy, especially cross-directorships, is seen by the OFT as a key factor that could give rise to material influence regardless of any shareholding; and
  • Fast track references: Exceptionally parties may wish for a merger to be fast tracked to in-depth investigation by Competition Commission ("CC").  Previously the OFT would need to go through all the usual procedural steps, however this is no longer required in instances where the parties accept that the test for a reference has been satisfied.  Mergers could proceed from formal notification to reference decision in as little as 10 working days.

Alongside these guidelines the OFT and CC are consulting on joint substantive assessment guidelines - the consultation period for which ends on 7 August 2009.  The OFT has further announced its intention to develop new guidance on exceptions to the duty to refer and undertakings in lieu.  A consultation on these is expected towards the end of 2009.

Ofwat Publishes Response To The Cave Review Of Competition And Innovation In Water Markets

On 25 June 2009, Ofwat published its response to the Government-commissioned Independent review of Competition and Innovation in the Water Markets in England and Wales (the "Cave Review"). The Cave Review put forward a number of recommendations in relation to improving competition in water markets in England and Wales. Ofwat's response to the key recommendations of the Cave Review are set out below.

  • Upstream Market Mechanisms: Ofwat supports the proposal to have a step-by-step approach to developing market mechanisms in upstream water and sewerage activities. Ofwat also supports the recommendation to reform the current combined supply licence for new entrants by creating new upstream licences for companies wishing, for example, to introduce water into a company's network, or to carry out sewage or sludge treatment or disposal. Ofwat states that it will need to consider what further value would be added by the Cave Review's proposal to introduce an 'economic purchasing obligation' to Ofwat's existing price review process.
  • Retail Services Market: Ofwat supports the staged approach suggested by the Cave Review to developing an effective water and sewerage retail services market for non-households by initially reducing the existing eligibility threshold to 5 mega litres and eventually allowing all non-household customers to choose their water supplier. Ofwat also agrees to the replacing of the costs principle in legislation with Ofwat determining access pricing rules and access prices and the provision of mandatory legal separation of the retail operations of water companies. Ofwat will publish advice on the appropriate size of water companies required to carry out such a legal separation.
  • Industry Structure: Ofwat supports the Cave Review's recommendation for introducing a new first stage test for considering water mergers under the special regime whereby Ofwat would advise the OFT on whether a merger should be referred to the Competition Commission.  However, Ofwat does not support either raising the special merger regime turnover threshold to £70 million from the existing £10 million or excluding monopoly household retailers from the special merger regime. Ofwat states that such an increase or exclusion of monopoly household retailers would result in a reduction of comparators for Ofwat's comparative regulation regime, ultimately leading to higher bills and lower protection for consumers.

The Ofwat response also deals with the Cave Review's recommendations on Abstraction and Discharge, New Appointments and Innovation. Ofwat largely agrees with these recommendations while pointing out certain areas in which further clarification is required (for example Ofwat requests further clarification on what a statutory duty placed upon it to promote innovation would entail).

The UK Government will begin official consultations later this year on the proposals made in the Cave Review.


German Court Significantly Reduces Cement Cartel Fines

A Düsseldorf appeals court (Oberlandesgericht) last week significantly reduced the fines imposed by Germany's Federal Cartel Office ("BKartA") on five cement companies.

The court nearly halved the total fines from the €649 million imposed initially by the BKartA in 2003 on the cement companies HeidelbergCement AG, Holcim (Deutschland) AG, Dyckerhoff AG, Lafarge Zement GmbH and Schwenk Zement KG.

The BKartA stated in its press release commenting on the judgment that it believes the reductions were mainly prompted by three reasons.

First, the fines imposed by the BKartA in 2003 were assessed with a particular focus on the profits gained from the anti-competitive conduct. After a thorough investigation and with assistance from an independent economist, the court re-assessed the profits gained by the companies and subsequently reduced the fines accordingly.  This was primarily because the independent economist's assessment of the possible loss was more cautious than the assessment undertaken by the BKartA in 2003.

Secondly, the fines were reduced to take into account the parties' extensive cooperation during the BKartA investigation.

Finally, to a more limited extent, certain assumptions on the facts of the case made by the BKartA to calculate the surplus could not be upheld on closer analysis.

HeidelbergCement, which received the biggest fine, said on Monday that it now had to pay €170 million instead of the €252 million that was initially imposed. For France's Lafarge, the world's largest cement maker, the fines were reduced from €86 million to €24 million, whereas Switzerland's Holcim, the second largest cement maker, had its fines reduced from €74 million to €14.6 million.  Dyckerhoff's fine was reduced from €95 million to €50 million and Schwenk's fine was roughly halved to €70 million.

HeidelbergCement has already appealed against the decision to the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) as it considers an even higher reduction to be appropriate.  The other parties have until today to decide whether to contest the judgment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.