{"id":21154,"date":"2024-07-05T16:07:48","date_gmt":"2024-07-05T14:07:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wiersholm.no\/?post_type=newsletter&p=21032"},"modified":"2025-03-12T15:25:24","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T14:25:24","slug":"competition-law-highlights-h1-2024","status":"publish","type":"newsletter","link":"https:\/\/wiersholm.no\/en\/newsletters\/competition-law-highlights-h1-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Competition law highlights \u2013 H1 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"

Competition law highlights \u2013 H1 2024<\/h1>\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n

This newsletter gives an overview of highlights in the field of competition law from the first half of 2024, both in Norway and at the European level.<\/p>\n\n

Antitrust and Competition<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

The first half of 2024 seems to have unfolded relatively quietly for the Norwegian Competition Authority (NCA), with a few exceptions. Among these are the issuance of a Statement of Objections to two Norwegian moving companies, in relation to potential collusive practices contrary to Section 10 of the Competition Act. Additionally, a Statement of Objections has been issued in the so-called \u201cprice hunting\u201d case, pertaining to the reduction of potential fines. This development comes as the NCA has decided to conclude the part of the case concerning a possible restriction of competition by object. Based on publicly available information, the NCA has not opened any new investigation cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of merger control, the NCA has continued the trend of dedicating more time to reviewing cases in important consumer markets. During the first half of 2024, the authority has initiated two phase II investigations, one of which has been approved so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On a more principal level, the NCA faced a setback with the Hordaland District Court\u2019s conclusion that the exemption of in-house lawyers\u2019 correspondence from seizure by the NCA under Norwegian law does not <\/em>violate EEA law. The NCA has appealed the decision. The case may impact the daily operations of in-house lawyers and is anticipated to be of significance to the entire legal profession in Norway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Things have also been relatively quiet on the legislative front, with only a minor proposal published by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. This proposal pertains to interest related to fines and aims to establish a more balanced set of rights and obligations between the government and companies, more in line with the similar rules under the EU\/EEA competition rules. No official updates have been published on the status of the market investigation tool, for which consultation was launched last March. A review of a market investigation tool for the Swedish Competition Authority is also currently ongoing, with a deadline set for the end of February 2025. Meanwhile, a market investigation tool will come into effect in Denmark from 1 July 2024. From the same date, the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority will also have the ability to call in certain mergers for notification, even if they fall below the Danish turnover thresholds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the EU level, the Commission appears to have had a more eventful first half of the year, marked by active enforcement and novel decisions. This includes the Commission\u2019s first imposition of a fine for the deletion of messages exchanged via social media apps during an antitrust inspection. The Commission\u2019s readiness to enforce procedural rules is further evidenced by the Statement of Objections against Kingspan, alleging that the company provided incorrect, incomplete, and misleading information under the EU Merger Regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Commission\u2019s pursuit of Big Tech appears to have intensified this half-year, with several investigations initiated and (preliminary) decisions made. Particularly notable are the Commission\u2019s Statement of Objections over Microsoft\u2019s potential abusive tying practices regarding Teams, as well as the multiple cases against Apple, both under EU competition rules and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These actions appear to be part of the EU\u2019s initiative to curb the perceived dominance and alleged anti-competitive practices of prominent technology corporations. In March, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the smartphone markets. The lawsuit seemingly bears several similarities with the Commission\u2019s current enforcement practice, underscoring the broader trend of heightened scrutiny of tech giants\u2019 business practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the Commission\u2019s notable merger decisions this spring is the approval of the joint venture between Orange and M\u00e1sMovil. This decision, marking the first approval of a 4-3 transaction in telecom markets in a while, has prompted speculation about a potential shift towards a more lenient stance on mergers in the telecom sector. The transaction was approved based on commitments. The Commission has also approved several other mergers across various sectors in recent months upon commitments, including the acquisition of Bollor\u00e9 Logistics SE by CMA CGM S.A. and Korean Air\u2019s acquisition of Asiana \u2013 all of which are further detailed below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also noteworthy in the merger sphere is Advocate General Emiliou\u2019s opinion, issued earlier this year, on the Commission\u2019s competence to review Illumina\u2019s acquisition of GRAIL under Article 22 of the Merger Regulation. Advocate General Emilio proposes that the Court of Justice should overturn the General Court\u2019s judgment and annul the Commission\u2019s decision to accept the referral and the requests to joint it as the requesting Member State did not have competence to review the transaction under national law. This will be a particularly interesting case to follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further detailed below is the Court of Justice\u2019s affirmation that the Commission\u2019s organizational setup does not inherently raise issues concerning its impartiality and the undertaking\u2019s right to the presumption of innocence in hybrid cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please find some selected highlights below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COMPETITION LAW IN NORWAY<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Norwegian laws, regulation and guidelines<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t