Dear Reader,

This is the 23rd issue of the ECN Brief, which is a publication of the European Competition Network (ECN). The ECN is a network of the Member States’ competition authorities (NCAs) and the European Commission (DG Competition). The ECN Brief aims to inform you about the activities of the ECN and its members and to reflect the richness of enforcement actions and advocacy in the Network. It focuses on news of major interest about EU competition law and policy.

This issue covers news from the first half of 2014. Next to reporting about several enforcement actions by the ECN members, the Brief highlights some institutional developments: the new Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) started working in the UK on 1 April and in Ireland, the National Consumer Agency is planned to merge with the Competition Authority. At the European level, a compromise text of the Directive on Antitrust damages has been approved by the European Parliament on 17 April: the Directive will make it easier for consumers and businesses which have suffered harm as a result of an infringement of EU antitrust rules to obtain compensation.

More news about the activities of the ECN and its members will be published in July 2014. In the meantime, we wish you interesting reading!

Table of contents

Enforcement and Cases

Legislation and Policy

Other issues of interest

ECN Members’ websites

ECN Statistics

Click here for a complete printable version of the ECN Brief

Subscription details: The ECN Brief will only be available in electronic for-mat on this website and the websites of national competition authorities. If you want to subscribe to it, please click here. To unsubscribe, use the same link.

Any reactions, comments, ideas, suggestions for the improvement of this Brief are very welcome and should be sent to the following address comp-ecn-brief@ec.europa.eu

ECN BriefECN Brief 02/2014 Welcome to the May 2014

issue of theECN Brief

DISCLAIMER:This publication is a compilation of contributions from national competition authorities of the European Union and the Competition Directorate General of the European Commission (“the Authorities”). Information provided in this publication is for information purposes only and does not constitute professional or legal advice. The content of this publication is not binding and does not reflect the official position of any Authority. Neither any Authority nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of information contained in this publication. ISSN 1831-6107 KD-AH-14-002-EN-N

2

AUTHORITIES o Denmark:

Competition Council accepts new Commitments on Football Clubs’ joint Sale of Media Rights

o France: - Autorité de la Concurrence fines Editor of Sports Newspaper L’Equipe for forcing out Le 10Sport.com from Daily Sporting Press Market - Autorité de la Concurrence accepts Commitments from PMU to separate its Online Horserace Betting Activity from its monopolistic Network of Physical Points of Sale

o Germany: - Bundeskartellamt imposes Fines on several Wallpaper Manufacturers - Standard Fees for Electronic Cash Payment System abandoned

o Italy: Competition Authority fines Roche and Novartis for Cartelizing Sales of two major Ophthalmic Medicines

o Lithuania: Agreement among Brewers to cease Production of strong Beer violates Competition Rules

COURTS o Lithuania:

Supreme Administrative Court upholds Competition Authority’s Decision in Shipping Agency Case and adjusts Fines

ENFORCEMENT & CASES

Germany: Fines imposed on Sugar ManufacturersOn 18 February 2014, the Bundeskartellamt imposed fines totalling approximately € 280 000 000 on the three major German sugar manufacturers for a cartel fixing sales areas, quotas and prices. The agreements took place over several years up to 2009, and in some instances date back to the mid ‘90s.Read more

Romania: Fines imposed on Companies active on Market for Dental ProductsOn 5 February 2014, the Romanian Competition Council announced that it had imposed fines on five companies for agreeing on the maximum discount that could be offered by Romanian distributors of certain dental products to their customers. The Authority concluded that the conduct amounted to retail price maintenance in violation of national and EU competition rules.Read more

European Commission intervenes in so-called ‘Patent War’ by adopting Decisions addressed to Motorola and SamsungOn 29 April 2014, the European Commission adopted two antitrust decisions that concern the enforcement of standard essential patterns (SEPs) for the second and third generation telecom standards. The two decisions provide guidance to the industry on the competition law limits of using SEPs to exclude competitors from the market or to extract disadvantageous licensing terms.Read more

Lithuania: Reference for Preliminary Ruling to ECJ in Case concerning Online Sale of Package ToursThe Supreme Administrative Court has referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in a case in which 30 tour operators/travel agents were fined for having coordinated their actions online (Case C-74/14).Read more

3

o Bulgaria: - Commission for Protection of Competition recommends abolishing unreasonable administrative Barriers to Competition in Auditors’ Market - Commission for Protection of Competition advocates for more Competition on Retail Market of Reimbursable Drugs

o France: Autorité de la Concurrence publishes Results of its Sector Inquiry on Long-Distance Coach Transport

o Greece: Competition Commission issues Formal Opinion on Professional Rights of Engineers

o Latvia: - Ten Years of Competition Policy Enforcement since Accession to European Union

o - Low Price as main Criterion in choosing Television Operator - Competition Council launches Inquiry into Supply of Information Systems to Public Authorities

o The Netherlands: Authority for Consumers and Markets develops new Consultation Method to set its Agenda 2014-2015

o Poland: New Competition Policy Strategy of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection

o United Kingdom: - Competition and Markets Authority announces Programme of Work on Banking - Office for Gas and Electricity proposes Reference to Competition and Markets Authority to investigate Energy Market.

o European Comission: Revised Competition Regime for Technology Transfer Agreements

LEGISLATION & POLICY

Cyprus: Amendments to Protection of Competition Law enter into ForceThe Law has been amended to improve the effectiveness of competition law enforcement by enhancing the powers of the competition authority and providing further convergence with EU Law and ECN Recommendations.Read more

Ireland: New Competition and Consumer Bill merges Consumer Agency and Competition AuthorityOn 31 March 2014, a new Competition and Consumer Bill was published by the Irish Government. It will provide for the merger of the National Consumer Agency and Competition Authority, improvements in the competition law; the regulation of certain practices in the grocery goods sector and the modernisation of the law on media mergers.Read more

United Kingdom: Competition and Markets Authority starts WorkOn 1 April 2014, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) started work as the UK’s primary competition and consumer agency: bringing together the Competition Commission (CC) with the competition and certain consumer functions of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the CMA has a range of new responsibilities and powers to ensure it meets its mission of making markets work well for consumers, businesses and the economy.Read more

European Union: The European Parliament approves Compromise Text of Directive on Antitrust Damages ActionsThe Directive will make it easier for consumers and businesses to obtain compensation if they are victims of infringements of the EU antitrust rules, such as cartels and abuses of dominant market positions. The text aims to remove a number of practical difficulties which victims frequently face when they try to obtain compensation for the harm they have suffered. At the same time it ensures that the effectiveness of the tools used by competition authorities to enforce antitrust rules, in particular leniency and settlement programmes, is preserved.Read more

4

EVENTS o Hungary:

Report of Visegrad 4 Competition Conference

o The Netherlands: Authority for Consumers and Markets hosts Meeting of ECN members on Construction Materials

o Slovakia: Report on International Conference on Current Trends in Slovak and European Competiiton Law

CONTACTS

ECN STATISTICS

Access to Commission Cases

Training of Judges

OTHER ISSUES OF INTEREST

© European Union, 2014. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This publication may contain links to other websites. Linked information is subject to use conditions, disclaimers, copyright and any other conditions and limitations governing linked websites or otherwise applicable.

The Netherlands: Authority for Consumers and Markets hosts Conference on ‘Innovation in oversight/Oversight and innovation’In celebration of its first anniversary, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is organizing a one-day international conference on 20 June 2014. The theme of the conference is: Innovation in Oversight/Oversight and Innovation. Attendees will include high-level representatives from the corporate sector, academia, competition agencies and competition regulators.Read more

ECN members’ websites

Number of envisaged decisions by national competition authority; types of envisaged decisions etc.: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html

Case search

2014 Annual Justice Work Programme and new Call for Proposals on Training of National Judges in EU Competition Law

Personalia

• Poland: Appointment of new President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection

Annual Reports

• Ireland:. Annual Report 2013 published

• European Commission:. 2013 Report on Competition Policy published

Link to the Annual Reports of all ECN Members

• Germany: The Bundeskartellamt imposes Fines on Sugar Manufacturers for Cartel AgreementsOn 18 February 2014, the Bundeskartellamt (BKartA) imposed fines totalling approximately € 280 000 000 on the three major German sugar manufacturers Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG (Pfeifer & Langen), Südzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt (Südzucker) and Nordzucker AG (Nordzucker) for a cartel fixing sales areas, quotas and prices. The infringement concerned the sale of sugar for the processing industry (industrial sugar) and sugar for consumers (retail sugar). The agreements took place over several years up to the time of the BKartA’s inspections in 2009, and in some instances date back to the mid ‘90s.

For many years the sugar manufacturers limited sugar sales to their respective so-called home sales areas in Germany in order to achieve the highest possible prices. This territorial agreement was supplemented by measures to guarantee prices and quantities in Germany and to control imports and exports. Meetings were held at director level or sales manager level for the purpose of making adjustments and to uphold the basic consensus to respect key sales areas. The subjects discussed were, for example, plant closures, expansion strategies, allocation of quotas and agreements on prices for industrial and retail sugar. Issues such as amendments to the European Sugar Market Regulation, EU eastern enlargement or changes in the import-export flows also triggered consultations between the three sugar manufacturers to achieve largely homogeneous ‘customer and volume management’.

In 2008, following the gradual decrease of the European production quotas for sugar from 2005 onwards, Nordzucker, Pfeifer & Langen and Südzucker agreed on their future production volumes and respective quota renunciation to prevent an oversupply of sugar in Germany.

Nordzucker cooperated extensively in the framework of the BKartA’s leniency programme and benefitted accordingly from a significant reduction of fine. In calculating the fines the BKartA also took into consideration the cooperation of the other companies. All the companies concerned agreed to have the proceedings terminated by settlement.

The fining decisions are now final.

See press release (in English)

• Romania: Fines imposed on Companies active on Market for Dental ProductsOn 5 February 2014, the Romanian Competition Council (RCC) announced in a press release that it had imposed fines totalling € 102 613 on five companies for agreeing on the maximum discount that could be offered by Romanian distributors of certain dental products to their customers. The RCC concluded that the conduct amounted to retail price maintenance in violation of national and EU competition rules.

Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH&Co.KG Germania (Vita Germany) produces and distributes artificial teeth made from ceramics and other materials for dental reconstruction, as well as dental accessories and other products used in dentistry. In Romania, Vita Germany does not distribute its products directly; rather, it uses its Romanian distributors: Dentotal Protect, Helios Medical & Dental, Tehnodent Poka and West Dental Teh-med.

The investigation, which was opened on 27 April 2011, also showed that the parties used a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the agreement and to ensure that no competition would take place between the distributors.

Based on the above, the RCC decided to impose the following fines: € 14 260 on Vita Germany; € 52 277 on SC Dentotal Protect SRL; € 16 927 on SC Helios Medical & Dental SRL; € 14 783 on SC Tehnodent Poka SRL and € 4 366 on SC West Dental Teh-med SRL.

See press release (in Romanian) and decision (in Romanian)

AUTHORITIES

5

ENFORCEMENT & CASES

6

• European Commission intervenes in so-called ‘Patent War’ by adopting Decisions addressed to Motorola and SamsungOn 29 April 2014, the European Commission (Commission) adopted two antitrust decisions that concern the enforcement of patents by Motorola and Samsung which are essential to two telecom standards, so-called standard essential patents (‘SEPs’), for the second and third generation standards (commonly known as ‘GSM’ and ‘3G’).

The two decisions provide guidance to the industry on the competition law limits of using SEPs to exclude competitors from the market or to extract disadvantageous licensing terms.

Background: Standardisation, SEPs and injunctions

Standards bring benefits to consumers and businesses alike in terms of interoperability and innovation. In order to reap the benefits of standardisation it is important that the standardised technology be accessible to all interested parties on reasonable conditions. That is why standard-setting organisations require that members holding patents commit to license their SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms. Commitments to license on FRAND terms seek to address the issue of SEP holder’s potential market power, once a standard has been adopted and implementers (such as smartphone producers) have invested in developing standard-compliant products.

Some SEP holders have tried to take advantage of uncertainties about the meaning of FRAND by seeking and enforcing injunctions before courts. These injunctions can lead to a prohibition on selling the products which allegedly infringe the patent.

Take-away from both decisions

The two decisions clarify how EU competition rules apply to the strategic use of SEPs by establishing that the seeking and enforcing of injunctions may infringe Article 102 TFEU when two conditions are met:

- first, a dominant SEP holder has given a commitment to license on FRAND terms during standard- setting;- and second, the potential licensee is willing to enter into a licence on FRAND terms.

Motorola Decision: In its prohibition decision against Motorola, the Commission establishes that a potential licensee is to be considered willing if, in case of dispute, it agrees to a determination of FRAND terms by a court. This constitutes a ‘safe-harbour’ against SEP-based injunctions for potential licensees who remain entitled to challenge the validity and infringement of the SEPs.

Samsung Decision: The Commission’s Samsung commitments decision is an implementation of this ‘safe-harbour’ concept. Samsung committed not to seek injunctions for the next five years in the EEA against any potential licensee who agrees to accept a specific, market-tested licensing framework.

See further information:Press release Motorola casePress release Samsung Electronics Frequently asked questions on antitrust decisions on SEPs Introductory remarks on Motorola and Samsung decisions

Press spokespersons: Antoine Colombani (+32 2 297 45 13, Twitter: @ECspokesAntoine)Yizhou Ren (+32 2 299 48 89)

• Denmark: The Competition Council accepts new Commitments on Football Clubs’ joint Sale of Media RightsOn 26 February 2014, the Danish Competition Council (DCC) accepted revised commitments offered by the Association of Danish League Clubs (ADLC) regarding the joint sale of media rights on Danish football by the football clubs. The new binding commitments make it more difficult for one broadcaster to buy all

7

the important rights, but also allow for a longer rights period.

Significant market developments on the Danish rights and TV markets have given rise to a revision of the commitments from 2007. On the one hand, the Superliga, the most important Danish football league, enjoys a less unique position since the UEFA Champions League and the English Premier League are getting increasingly popular among Danish consumers. On the other hand, there are only a few potential buyers of media rights to the Superliga left due to a consolidated broadcasting market.

In light of these particular circumstances on the relevant Danish football rights and TV markets, the revised commitments introduce the following main changes:

• Minimum prices are no longer allowed, because such practice can limit the number of bidders and trigger a situation with a single buyer;

• The maximum rights period is extended;

• A strengthened ‘no single buyer’-rule takes effect if the rights are sold for a period of more than three years:

i. A broadcaster can only buy live rights to a maximum of 4 out of 6 matches (compared to 5 out of 6 before), and ii. A broadcaster cannot acquire live rights to both of the two most attractive matches (no such requirement existed before).

The previous commitment decision concerning the joint sale of media rights on Danish football from 2007 brought an end to ADLC’s practice of selling the rights to the Superliga to a single vertically integrated broadcaster. This decision has ensured that more broadcasters, and thus distributors, have access to these attractive rights, which has also improved competition on the downstream TV markets.

The new commitments are offered by ADLC in order to accommodate concerns related to both Danish and EU competition law due to a joint sales agreement between 12 competitors (the Superliga clubs).

See press release (in English)

Press spokesperson: Head of Division, Soren Bo Rasmussen, phone +45 41 71 52 76, e-mail: sbr@kfst.dk

• France: The Autorité de la concurrence fines Editor of Sport Newspaper l’Équipe for forcing out Le 10Sport.com from Daily Sporting Press MarketOn 20 February, the Autorité de la concurrence (the Autorité) imposed on Éditions Philippe Amaury (the Amaury Group) a fine of € 3 500 000 for implementing a strategy aimed at forcing out of the market the new entrant, Le 10Sport.com, in order to maintain the monopoly of L’Équipe, its own newspaper.

In 2008, Le Journal du Sport announced the launch of a sports daily focusing on football, called Le 10Sport.com, to be sold at an attractive price. The first issue was planned for 3 November 2008. Two weeks after this announcement, the Amaury Group also announced the launch of a new sports daily whose positioning (format, price, editorial line, and readership) was identical to that of Le 10Sport.com. In late October, the Amaury Group issued a statement announcing the launch for 3 November, the same date as the launch of Le 10Sport.com.

In December 2008, Le Journal du Sport brought the case before the Autorité. It alleged that the Amaury Group had implemented unfair competitive practices and denigration strategies, applied pressure on advertisers, and used an exclusionary strategy that consisted of publishing a new newspaper for the sole purpose of destroying Le 10Sport.com.

Inspections carried out in May 2009 at Amaury Group’s premises yielded numerous documents revealing the Group’s strategy to drive off Le 10Sport.com from the market. Indeed, the notes, documents and tables found show that the Amaury Group had set up a plan designed to ‘kill Le10Sport’. It emerged from the evidence gathered that the Amaury Group’s launch of a new newspaper was not intended to generate profits but rather was done expressly to hinder the entrance of Le 10Sport.com. Indeed, by

8

launching its own newspaper, the Amaury Group made a major financial sacrifice by cannibalizing the sales of its other newspaper, L’Équipe.

This strategy led to the siphoning off of some Le 10Sport.com readership, as well reduced sales and operating results, eventually leading to the termination of its business. By achieving its goal, the Amaury Group enabled L’Équipe to regain its monopoly on the daily sporting press market.

In setting the level of the fine to € 3 500 000, the Autorité took into account the Amaury Group’s financial difficulties and reduced the amount by 60%.

See press release (in English)

• France: The Autorité de la concurrence accepts Commitments from PMU to separate its Online Horserace Betting Activity from its monopolistic Network of Physical Points of SaleSince 1930 in France, race companies have had a legal monopoly over the organisation of horse races and the bets taken on them, which they exercised via an economic interest group: the Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU). The law of 12 May 2010, which opened up to competition the online gambling and betting sector including online horserace betting, nevertheless allowed PMU to maintain its monopoly over horserace betting through its network of physical outlets. Since then, although competition has appeared in the form of seven alternative online operators, PMU still retains a dominant position on the online horserace betting market, with an 85% market share in 2013.

Following a complaint from Betclic, one of PMU’s competitors on the market for online horserace betting, the Autorité de la concurrence (Autorité) investigated the market and opened proceedings against PMU for alleged abuse of dominance.

According to the Autorité’s investigation, it appeared that PMU pools into a single pot all the bets placed, both online and in physical outlets. This pooling allows the Pmu.fr website (the online betting branch of PMU) to increase almost tenfold the betting pot established for each of its bets. In this context, the Autorité found that because PMU’s competitors on the online market do not benefit from the resources of monopoly over betting in physical outlets, they are not in a position to match PMU’s betting pot and thus are not able to make offers which are as attractive as PMU’s. Thus PMU’s pooling of its online and ‘brick and mortar’ betting pots is liable to lead to a risk of marginalisation and eviction of its online competitors.

In response to these competition concerns, PMU proposed commitments which were subjected to a market test between the end of October and early December 2013 (see press release). After several successive improvements, the Autorité accepted PMU’s commitments and made them binding.

As a result, for each of the bets offered on Pmu.fr, the PMU has undertaken to separate, by September 2015, the pool of bets registered online from the pool of bets registered at physical outlets. From then on, the horserace betting pots offered by Pmu.fr will consist solely of the online stakes registered on the site, the same as its competitors.

The PMU has also offered commitments in relation to the use of its client bases, the customer pathway on Pmu.fr and the valuation of the fee for the use of the PMU trademark for its Internet activities.

See press release (in English) and Decision (in French)

• Germany: The Bundeskartellamt imposes Fines on Wallpaper ManufacturersOn 25 February 2014, the Bundeskartellamt (BKartA) imposed fines totalling around € 17 000 000 on four wallpaper manufacturers, their representatives and trade association on account of price fixing agreements. The undertakings fined are A.S. Création Tapeten AG (A.S. Création), Marburger Tapetenfabrik J.B. Schaefer GmbH & Co. KG (Marburger), Erismann & Cie. GmbH (Erismann), Pickhardt + Siebert GmbH (Pickhardt + Siebert) and the Association of German Wallpaper Manufacturers (Verband der Deutschen

9

Tapetenindustrie e.V., hereafter VDT).

The BKartA opened proceedings with sector-wide inspections carried out in November 2010 following a leniency application filed by Tapetenfabrik Gebr. Rasch GmbH & Co. KG (Rasch).

The BKartA established that representatives of A.S. Création, Rasch, Marburger and Erismann agreed at VDT board meetings in 2005 to introduce a price increase of around 5 to 6 % for wallpaper in Germany with effect from 1 March 2006. A.S. Création, as market leader, was to be the first to announce the price increase. VDT’s managing director at the time helped to implement the price agreement by forwarding information received from A.S. Création about the forthcoming announcement of the price increase to all association members.

The next price increase with effect from 1 January 2008 was also the result of an anti-competitive agreement, which concerned another joint price increase of around 5 %. This had been agreed in April 2007 on the margins of a VDT general meeting between A.S. Création, Rasch, Marburger, Erismann, and in this particular case also Pickhardt + Siebert.

No fines were imposed on Rasch in accordance with the BKartA’s leniency programme. In calculating the level of fines, the BKartA took into consideration Pickhardt + Siebert’s cooperation in uncovering the second price agreement. The proceedings against Erismann and Pickhardt + Siebert were concluded by settlement, which was also considered in the calculation of the fines.

The decisions against Erismann and Pickhardt + Siebert are final. The other decisions behave been appealed to the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court.

See press release (in English)

• Germany: Standard Fees for Electronic Cash Card Payment System abandonedOn 8 April 2014, the Bundeskartellamt (BKartA) adopted a decision which declares binding the commitments of the leading banking associations in Germany to abandon their agreement on standard fees payable by retailers when using the electronic cash card payment system.

The electronic cash card payment system is a national debit card scheme used for non-cash payments at the point of sale by means of a Girocard. It is by far the leading card payment system in Germany, with an annual transaction volume of € 128 000 000 000. The principal alternative to the electronic cash system for retailers is the electronic direct debit system (ELV), where certain data on the Girocard are used to generate a direct debit.

According to the electronic cash framework, which was jointly established by the leading bank associations, retailers had to pay a standard fee for every electronic cash transaction to the bank that issued the Girocard. This charge amounted to 0.3% of the transaction value with a minimum of € 0.08. Large retail chains and petrol stations had already managed to negotiate discounts with the banks for transactions at their cash tills.

In the BKartA’s preliminary view, the jointly set standard fee constitutes an unjustified restraint of competition. Such a standard fee is not objectively necessary for the operation of the electronic cash-system. An in-depth examination of the market situation confirmed that individual negotiations between the market participants, i.e. the retailers and card issuing banks, are possible. Pressure on the price will be exercised, in particular, by the competing ELV system.

The commitments to abandon the agreement therefore meet the BKartA’s concerns. However, the BKartA will monitor future market developments closely. See press release (in English)

10

• Italy: The Italian Competition Authority fines Roche and Novartis for Cartelizing Sales of two major Ophthalmic MedicinesOn 27 February 2014, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) found that Roche and Novartis infringed Article 101 TFEU by taking part in an anti-competitive agreement in the market for ophthalmic drugs used to treat some serious vascular eyesight conditions, including age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the main cause of blindness in developed countries.

The investigation started in February 2013 on the basis of complaints filed by an association of private hospitals and the Italian Ophthalmologic Association. The evidence gathered shows that starting in 2011 Roche and Novartis set up a complex collusive strategy, with a view to avoiding the commercial success of Lucentis being hindered by the ophthalmic applications of Avastin. They colluded to create an artificial product differentiation between Avastin and Lucentis, and to claim that Avastin is more dangerous than Lucentis, in order to influence prescriptions by doctors and health services for eyesight conditions.

Originally, the use of Avastin was approved for the treatment of some forms of cancer. Yet since mid-2000 it has been used off-label to treat common eyesight conditions in accordance with the Italian regulatory framework. Lucentis, a more recently developed drug which contains an active substance similar to Avastin, has received regulatory approval upon request of Genentech – a subsidiary of Roche – in the US, and of Novartis everywhere else, specifically for some of these eyesight conditions. However, there is a significant difference in price between them: while an injection of Lucentis in Italy costs € 900 (down from an earlier price of € 1 700), the price of an off-label injection of Avastin tops at € 81.

The efforts of Roche and Novartis intensified as a growing number of independent comparative studies supported the equivalence of the two drugs for ophthalmic uses.

The economic rationale of the companies’ conduct stems from the relationship between the Roche and Novartis groups: while Roche collects significant royalties from the sales of Lucentis, which was developed by its subsidiary Genentech, Novartis benefits directly from Lucentis’ sales and holds a more than 30% share in Roche.

According to the ICA, this illicit collusion may have hindered access to treatment for many patients and caused the Italian National Health Service to bear additional expenses estimated at € 45 000 000 in 2012, while increased future costs might possibly exceed € 600 000 000 per year.

In light of the seriousness of the infringement, the ICA imposed on Roche and Novartis fines totalling respectively € 90 500 000 and € 92 000 000.

See press release and decision (in Italian)

• Lithuania: Agreement among Brewers to cease Production of Strong Beer violates Competition RulesOn 4 March 2014, the Competition Council (Council) declared that the Lithuanian Guild of Brewers and AB Gubernija, UAB Kalnapilio–Tauro grupė, UAB Restoranas Apynys, TŪB Rinkuškiai, UAB Švyturys–Utenos alus, AB Volfas Engelman – (the Lithuanian Guild of Brewers and its members, parties to the agreement) entered into a prohibited agreement restricting the production of beer, thereby infringing Article 5 of the Law on Competition and Article 101 TFEU.

In its decision, the Council found that between 2004 and 2013, the Lithuanian Guild of Brewers and its members agreed, under the Brewers Honour Code, not to produce beer of certain strength. This agreement made it possible to restrict competition in a certain segment of the beer market, predict the behaviour of competitors and foresee their actions related to the volume of beer production.

According to the Council, the facts of the case led to the conclusion that, contrary to what was announced publicly, the agreement among the brewers was not based only on public health concerns. Indeed, the Council found that the publicly announced obligation to restrict production of strong beer was repeatedly amended in line with the brewers’ economic interests. The output limitations were set on the basis of

11

the brewers’ production plans and the fact that production of certain strengths of beer failed to bring the desired profit margin. The Council also established that the arguments used in the correspondence between some of the members of Lithuanian Guild of Brewers differed from the justification they provided to the public, namely primarily promoting responsible use of alcohol.

When evaluating the agreement concluded between the Lithuanian Guild of Brewers and its members, the Council acknowledged that the arguments for potential benefits to society were unfounded.

Having considered all the circumstances established in the course of the investigation, the Council found that the Lithuanian Guild of Brewers and its members infringed the competition rules. However, the Council decided not to impose fines, since the parties to the agreement ceased the infringement during the investigation, and in 2008 the Council had stated in writing that it had no objection to the previous version of the Brewers Honour Code.

See decision (in Lithuanian)

COURTS

• Lithuania: Reference for Preliminary Ruling to ECJ in Case relating to Online Sale of Package ToursOn 17 January 2014, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Supreme Court) referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling in the case Eturas and others (Case C-74/14). The dispute in this case arose from the Competition Council’s (CC) decision of 7 June 2012, in which 30 tour operators/travel agents were fined more than € 1 500 000 for an anti-competitive concerted practice in the package tours sales market covering the entire territory of Lithuania.

The CC found that the tour operators/travel agents concerned had coordinated their actions online by fixing a maximum discount level (up to 3% of the tour price) for package tours distributed via internet using the online tours searching and booking system E-TURAS, managed by the undertaking UAB “Eturas”, thereby infringing Article 5 of the national Law on Competition and Article 101 TFEU (see ECN Brief 03/2012).

The Supreme Court seeks clarification on these questions:

- must Article 101(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that participation of undertakings in a common information system, as described in the CC case, may allow a presumption that the undertakings knew or should have known about applicable discount restrictions, and, as they did not contradict such discount restrictions, expressed tacit agreement to restrict price discounts, hence liability under Article 101(1) TFEU shall apply;

- if the answer to the first question is negative, then the Court of Justice is asked to clarify what factors shall be taken into account when deciding whether undertakings participating in a common information system concerted their actions in the sense of Article 101(1).

• Lithuania: The Supreme Administrative Court upholds Competition Authority’s Decision in Shipping Agency Case and adjusts FinesOn 7 April 2014, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Supreme Court) upheld the Competition Council’s (CC) decision of 8 December 2011, in which the CC found that the Lithuanian Shipbrokers and Agents Association and 32 association members had infringed the national Law on Competition and Article 101 TFEU. The companies and the Association were fined a total of almost LTL 15 000 000 (approximately

12

• Cyprus: Amendments to Protection of Competition Law enter into ForceOn 28 March 2014, the Protection of Competition (Amendment) Law 2014 (Law no. 41(I)/2014), entered into force, having being approved by the House of Representatives and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic.

The amendments are intended to improve the effectiveness of competition law enforcement in Cyprus, by enhancing the powers of the Cypriot competition authority (CPC) and providing further convergence with EU Law and Recommendations endorsed by the ECN.

Some of the most important modifications to the basic Law on the Protection of Competition are the following:

• Prioritisation of cases: The CPC is now vested with the power to prioritise cases taking into account a range of criteria, in particular the public interest, the potential impact on competition and/or consumers and the limitation period for the imposition of fines provided within the Law. This will enable the CPC to concentrate its limited resources on investigating infringements which may significantly affect competition or consumers;

• Sector Inquiries: The CPC is provided with the power to undertake sector inquiries into particular sectors of the economy or into particular types of agreement across various sectors;

• Oral Statements: The amending legislation enhances the investigative powers of the CPC, by vesting it with the power to take statements from any natural or legal person;

• Gathering of digital evidence (Forensic IT): The amending legislation enhances the investigative powers of the CPC during inspections, by enabling it to take forensic images and copies of data storage media of documents, books or records, wherever they are stored, while carrying out an inspection in business and non-business premises. The new power is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the CPC when conducting inspections aiming at revealing cartels, which are extremely difficult to detect without effective inspection powers;

• Cooperation with National Regulatory Authorities: The power to cooperate with other National Regulatory Authorities and request their assistance when conducting an investigation;

• Bilateral Agreements with other NCAs: The power to cooperate with other National Competition Authorities and to adopt bilateral agreements with those Authorities;

LEGISLATION & POLICY

€ 3 380 000) for concluding an anti-competitive agreement setting minimum tariffs for shipping services. (see ECN Brief 05/2011).

The Supreme Court ruled that the CC had correctly qualified the infringement of both the national competition rules and Article 101 TFEU. However, due to certain amendments to the Government resolution concerning the method of setting fines, the Court reduced the fines to 24 companies. When adjusting the fines, the Court took into consideration such criteria as individualisation of fines (calculation of fine for each company taking into consideration the value of sales to which the infringement relates, involvement in the agreement, etc.) and proportionality. See press release (in English)

13

• Interim Measures: The amendment of the requirements to be met for issuing interim measures, by limiting the scope only to urgency to act due to the risk of irreparable damage to competition and the possibility of infringement;

• Administrative fines: The new legislation amends the calculation method for fines (procedural and merits) imposed by the CPC. All fines imposed will be calculated as a percentage to the turnover of the preceding year either in relation to the whole year or in relation to the daily turnover of the company.

The Protection of Competition (Amendment) Law 2014 (Law no. 41(I)/2014) forms a separate text from the basic Law of Protection of Competition Law 2008. The two texts will be merged firstly in Greek and then in English.

The Protection of Competition (Amending) Law of 2014 and an unofficial consolidated version of the Basic Law and the Amending Law, in Greek, are available on the official website of the CPC.

See text of law (in Greek)

• Ireland: New Competition and Consumer Protection Bill merges Consumer Agency and Competition AuthorityOn 31 March 2014, a new Competition and Consumer Protection Bill was published by the Irish Government.

The draft legislation has three main components:

• Merge the National Consumer Agency and Competition Authority and deliver improvements in competition law;

• Regulate certain practices in the grocery goods sector aimed at ensuring balance and fairness between the various players in the sector – suppliers, retailers and consumers;

• Update and modernise the law on media mergers to take account of international best practice and technological developments.

Welcoming the publication of the Bill, Isolde Goggin, Chairperson of the Competition Authority and Chair-designate of the new organisation, said, ‘The creation of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission serves the needs of consumers in Ireland by creating a new organisation with robust powers in the enforcement of both competition and consumer law. Anti-competitive practices are damaging to both consumers and the wider economy. The ultimate aim of the new body will be to ensure open and competitive markets where consumers are protected and empowered and businesses actively compete.’

See full text of the Bill and explanatory documents and press release

• United Kingdom: The Competition and Markets Authority starts WorkOn 1 April 2014, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) started work as the UK’s primary competition and consumer agency, with a vital role to play in helping stimulate economic growth and innovation and ensuring consumers get a good deal.

Bringing together the Competition Commission (CC) with the competition and certain consumer functions of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the CMA has a range of new responsibilities and powers to ensure it meets its mission of making markets work well for consumers, businesses and the economy. These include tighter timetables for investigations, a stronger role in ensuring competition in regulated sectors like financial services and energy, and a reformed legal framework for prosecuting individuals involved in criminal cartel activity.

14

In its first Annual Plan, the CMA sets out its priorities and work programme. These focus on merger control, market studies and investigations, and enforcement of competition and consumer law. The CMA has already taken on a challenging programme of markets work in key strategic areas such as banking, energy, payday lending and higher education. It will now take on from the OFT and CC more than a dozen live competition enforcement and consumer cases, over 30 merger cases and three on-going Phase 2 market investigations.

On 12 March 2014, the CMA published a second set of guidance documents providing clarity on how the organisation will go about its work.

See press release. For further information, see here

• European Union: The European Parliament approves Compromise Text of Directive on Antitrust Damages ActionsOn 11 June 2013, the European Commission (Commission) adopted a proposal for a Directive on antitrust damages actions. The proposal has the objective of ensuring the effective exercise of the EU right to compensation for harm suffered as a result of a competition law infringement, and to optimise the interplay between private actions for damages and public enforcement of EU competition law by the Commission and national competition authorities. In March 2014, the European Parliament and the Council reached political agreement on a compromise text.

On 17 April 2014, the European Parliament’s plenary approved the compromise text of the Directive at first reading, with a wide majority. After translation and linguistic revision, the text now has to be formally approved by the Council before it is published in the Official Journal.

Any victim of an antitrust infringement has a right under EU law to obtain compensation from the infringers for the harm suffered (e.g. higher prices, lost profits…). The Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) has repeatedly held that this right is a matter of effective enforcement of EU antitrust rules. However, to date few victims have brought actions, and even fewer of them obtained compensation in the end, due to substantive and procedural obstacles.

The Directive will make it easier for consumers and businesses to obtain compensation. This objective is pursued through a number of measures, which include:

• National courts are empowered to order disclosure of evidence that is relevant to the action for damages, on condition that disclosure is proportionate and confidential information is protected;

• Victims can rely, before national courts of a Member State, on final infringement decisions adopted by the competition authority of the same Member State as full proof of the infringement. The original Commission proposal envisaged a similar effect also for decisions adopted by other authorities, while under the final text, these should be at least considered as prima facie evidence of the infringement;

• Clear limitation period rules are established, so that parties have sufficient time to bring an action, especially after a decision by a competition authority (at least one year after the decision becomes final);

• The Directive intoduces the possibility to raise a passing-on defence when a victim transferred part of or the whole price increase caused by the infringement to his own customers. At the same time, it introduces a presumption to make it easier for indirect purchasers to prove that they bore part or the whole of the overcharge;

• A presumption that cartel infringements cause harm is established.

The Directive also optimises the interplay between actions for damages and public enforcement of the EU competition rules carried out by the Commission and the national competition authorities. Certain documents in the file of competition authorities will only be eligible for disclosure after the public enforcement proceedings have been closed. Moreover, thanks to the Directive leniency corporate statements and settlement submissions will always be protected from disclosure. This ensures the

15

continued willingness of cartel participants to approach competition authorities and cooperate to help them detect and sanction the most serious infringements of competition law. To the same end, undertakings that are granted immunity from fines will benefit from a limitation on joint and several liability: they can in principle only be sued for damages by their own customers and not by the customers of other infringers.

After the Directive enters into force, Member States will have two years to transpose it into national law.

The text approved by the European Parliament, relevant case-law of the Court of Justice and other documents are available on the website of DG Competition.

• Bulgaria: The Commission for the Protection of Competition recommends abolishing unreasonable Administrative Barriers to Competition in Auditors’ MarketOn 12 March 2014, the Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC) issued an advocacy opinion in which it recommends abolishing the administrative barriers restricting the economic activities of registered auditors in Bulgaria. The procedure was initiated upon request of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a professional organisation empowered by law to maintain a public register of all auditors who are qualified to verify and certify company accounts.

As a matter of principle, in Bulgaria each company is free to choose its own auditor. However, the Commerce Law and the Law on Cooperatives foresee some cases in which auditors may be appointed by a public official working in the Registry Agency, which is responsible for registration of all companies, transactions of immovable property, matrimonial property ownership, and the BULSTAT registry (national administrative register). For instance, the Registry Agency official may appoint an auditor whenever the general assembly of a company has not elected one. In such a case, the auditor is selected from a list maintained by the Registry Agency. The requirements for inclusion on this list of auditors are very similar to the ones applicable for inclusion in the register of auditors maintained by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

After analysing these requirements, the CPC concluded that there is no objective necessity for the Registry Agency to maintain a separate list of auditors. The public register held by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants was created and is maintained pursuant to law, and the Institute is under the supervision of an independent state body – the Commission for Public Oversight of Statutory Auditors. The CPC considers that this register guarantees legal certainty and suggests that Registry Agency officials select auditors from the existing register. The CPC states that an additional list constitutes an unreasonable administrative barrier for auditors to be appointed by public officials in the specific situations provided for by law.

In addition, the CPC analysed the possibility for Registry Agency officials to set the remuneration paid to auditors by companies when an agreement cannot be reached. In this regard, the CPC reiterated its consistent position, that remuneration should not be determined administratively, but rather through negotiation between the auditing service providers and their clients. Thus, the CPC recommends that the competent state authorities, empowered to initiate legislative proposals, amend the existing legislation by enabling public officials to appoint auditors from the register of auditors maintained by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and to repeal the possibility for remuneration of appointed auditors to be set administratively.

See further the Decision in Bulgarian

• Bulgaria: The Commission for the Protection of Competition advocates for more Competition on Retail Market of Reimbursable DrugsOn 26 March 2014, the Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC) adopted an advocacy opinion on the compatibility with competition rules of certain provisions of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) draft acts on (i) the Terms and Conditions for signing a contract for granting and payment of

16

pharmaceuticals reimbursed by the NHIF, and (ii) the 2014 Sample Contract between the NHIF and the pharmacies selling reimbursable drugs.

The two draft acts foresaw the following obligations on retailers of reimbursable drugs:

• To sell reimbursable drugs at the same price, whether they are sold over the counter or by NHIF prescription, at whichever price is lower. According to the national legislation, drugs sold over the counter are not reimbursed by the NHIF, whereas those sold by NHIF prescription are entirely or partially reimbursed;

• To grant discounts to the NHIF on the price of reimbursable drugs identical to the discounts given to the patients.

In its opinion, the CPC states that the provision which foresees the sale of reimbursable drugs at the same price limits the right of pharmacies to determine their pricing policies independently. The CPC considers that the national legislation, by introducing a maximum price for reimbursable drugs, sufficiently guarantees provision of drugs at affordable prices for patients, and so retailers should be allowed to determine drug prices freely within the statutory limits.

With regard to the obligation of granting equal discounts to both the NHIF and patients, the CPC is of the opinion that it could lead to a restriction of competition on the retail market for reimbursable pharmaceuticals. This obligation limits the right of pharmacies to determine their commercial policy independently and may create a barrier to entry, as the retailers, who would not agree with this condition, would not be able to sign a contract with the NHIF for the sale of reimbursable drugs. In addition, this obligation could lower the pharmacies’ incomes, which might discourage them from giving discounts or even lead them to increase the prices of reimbursable drugs, which ultimately could negatively affect patient welfare.

In its decision, the CPC also assessed provisions in the two draft acts which set an average time to serve clients presenting prescriptions for reimbursable drugs, as well as a formula for calculating the maximum number of prescriptions filled depending on the number of pharmacists in a particular pharmacy. The CPC considers that such provisions are analogous to the rules of the 2013 Sample contract between the NHIF and the pharmacies, which was addressed by the CPC’s advocacy opinion in May 2013 (See ECN Brief 3/2013). Insofar as the provisions are similar, the CPC reiterates its position that these provisions could amount to a quota limitation on the retail trade of reimbursable drugs in Bulgaria which could negatively affect competition on the relevant market and harm consumers.

See further the Decision in Bulgarian

• France: The Autorité de la concurrence publishes Results of its Sector Inquiry on Long-Distance Coach TransportOn 27 February 2014, the Autorité de la concurrence (Autorité) published the conclusions of the extensive sector inquiry carried out over a one-year period on competition in the long-distance coach transport market. As part of the investigation, the Autorité consulted numerous parties involved in the market, including the public transport authorities and user representatives. It also held a public consultation (from 13 November to 24 December 2013), enabling it to enhance its initial draft recommendations (see press release of 13 November 2013).

In the conclusions, the Autorité first underlines that coach transport is an economical and efficient mode of transport which can be beneficial for consumers and contribute to increasing the overall demand for transport in France. However, despite its many advantages, long-distance coach transport still represents a very small share of passenger transport in France (around 110 000 passengers in 2013, or 0.0005% of the total number of long-distance journeys), mainly due to regulatory constraints that make its development difficult.

The observations made by the Autorité, confirmed by contributions received as part of the public consultation, have led it to reaffirm the benefit of wider opening up of the long-distance coach transport market. Indeed, domestic long-distance coach transport services are currently offered only if they

17

are ancillary to international transport services (so-called ‘cabotage operations’), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services. However, a number of Member States have gone beyond the limited opening foreseen under the Regulation, such as United Kingdom and Germany, with tangible benefits in terms of competition and the growth of coach transport services.

Moreover, the Autorité underlines that a simpler, more open and more transparent regulatory framework should be implemented in France, and in particular it recommends:

• Simplifying and shortening the market access procedure, since the time required for authorisation and lack of transparency in the current system impede the efficient development of this market;

• Clarifying the access procedure for coach stations. The Autorité indicates that in the short term, an inventory of the main coach stations is required, as well as gathering and centralisation of contact details for the responsible entities. Guarantees should also be implemented for the fair and non-discriminatory treatment of coach operators. In the longer term, an overhaul of the regulatory framework for coach stations is recommended, with the aims of clarifying the authorities’ responsibilities and determining unified rules of access to station facilities, on both technical and pricing aspects;

• Setting up an independent administrative authority responsible for the multimodal regulation of the sector (rail and road transport). This independent authority, whose duties would be broader than those of the Railway Regulation Authority, would be best placed to assess the degree of intermodal competition between rail and road transport and to reconcile private and public services, by providing additional guarantees of impartiality.

See press release (in French) and Opinion (in French)

• Greece: The Hellenic Competition Commission issues Formal Opinion on Professional Rights of EngineersOn 30 January 2014, the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) issued Opinion No. 34/2014, following a formal request from the Greek Government, on a draft legislation amending the current national legal framework on professional rights of engineers. The pieces of legislation proposed by the Ministry of Development and Competitiveness and the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change aim to remove excessive and unjustified restrictions regarding activities linked to professional qualification requirements for different technical and higher branches of engineering.

In particular, the current national legal framework on the professional rights of engineers is rather obsolete and fragmented, and, in many cases, confers professional rights and reserves certain activities to holders of specific academic titles, discriminates among universities and differentiates between private building construction, electromechanical projects and public works. Moreover, enrollment in professional registries by specific engineering activity and by type of construction further partitions the market and eliminates competition among professionals.

To this end, in its Opinion the HCC points out the need for general revision of the complete legal framework for engineers’ professional activities and its consolidation into one piece of legislation, to remove, uniformly and systematically, the existing contradictions and ambiguities for all engineering projects, public or private. The HCC proposes that the new legal framework should: a) describe the shared and, where necessary and proportionate in the light of overriding public interest, the exclusive professional activities of engineers with different specialties, and b) identify objective criteria for access to and exercise of those professional activities, based on the engineers’ expertise, aptitudes and experience, without reference solely to specific academic titles. In the same context, the HCC also proposes integrating the current different registries relating to construction activities based on objective criteria. Finally, the new legal framework could be supplemented by rules of professional conduct and responsibility, which would enable development and adoption of self-regulatory rules.

As immediate measures, the HCC proposes amending the current legislation on civil engineers, architects and topographers so that access to specific professional activities is determined by objective criteria of expertise and experience, and not merely by reference to academic titles granted by specific institutions.

18

In addition, the HCC suggests amending specific provisions of the draft laws to ensure equivalence of professional rights among graduates of universities, whether national or foreign, that award engineering diplomas corresponding to the above professional activities.

• Latvia: Ten Years of Competition Policy Enforcement since Accession to European Union1 May 2014 marks ten years since Latvia joined the European Union (EU). In the view of the Competition Council (CC), the cooperation within the European Competition Network (ECN), the mutual exchanges of experience among ECN members and expanded opportunities to detect infringements have been the most important benefits for the enforcement of competition policy.

Over the past ten years of membership in the EU, the CC has initiated 19 investigations of infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The most noteworthy are: (1) the case against the collective copyright management association AKKA/LAA for excessive pricing; (2) the case on abuse of a dominant position by Riga International Airport, which charged Ryanair and airBaltic substantially lower prices for airport services than those charged to their competitors, and (3) the concerted practices of SIA Samsung Electronics Baltics through resale price maintenance, allocation of markets and restricting trade for Samsung goods.

The majority of cartel cases are investigated by the CC under the national rules, since the cases concern public procurement of limited scope, and infringements which may affect cross-border trade are not so frequently established. Leniency programmes in the EU are an important instrument in the successful fight against cartels. However, in Latvia, the leniency programme is used rather reluctantly. As a result, more efforts need to be devoted to ex officio investigations. Also, according to the existing legislation, the CC has very limited possibilities to prioritise cases, but amendments to the Competition Law to provide broader scope for prioritisation are under discussion. This would mean that cases of relatively low importance should in future no longer impede the investigation of serious infringements that bear a much higher risk of affecting consumer welfare.

After Latvia joined the EU, the investigation powers of the CC were strengthened. Ten years ago, the CC did not yet have what is nowadays a self-evident right to carry out unannounced compulsory inspections on the basis of a court order. Without the right to carry out inspections, carefully concealed infringements such as cartels are difficult to discover which means that, before joining the EU the work of the CC had been limited to other types of infringements.

Cooperation among enforcers of EU competition rules is one of the main cornerstones for the effective and uniform application of EU competition rules, and cooperation within the ECN has been of utmost significance for the CC. Over the past ten years, the CC has collaborated in inspections with both the European Commission and other EU national competition authorities, and has also requested the assistance of other EU national competition authorities in inspections. Cooperation within the ECN working groups also has to be highlighted, as it allows the CC to gain not only valuable experience from other ECN members, but also wider comprehension of the latest competition law developments in the EU.

The application of the competition rules by the CC is a success. The aim for the coming years is to continue implementing EU competition policy and ensure its efficient and effective enforcement.

• Latvia: Low Price as main Criterion in choosing Television OperatorAt the end March 2014, the conclusions of a survey on the rating, availability and substitutability of five specialised-content international television channels in Latvia have been published.

This survey which was conducted by ResearchCube in the second half of January, was commissioned by the Competition Council of Latvia (CC) to gather information in the framework of investigating an alleged abuse of dominant position involving issues of substitutability of television programmes from the perspective of TV viewers. Since television programmes are offered in packages which are set by operators, viewers cannot freely select programmes of their own choice. The survey provides information on whether competition among the five specialised television channels

19

(Eurosport, Eurosport2, Discovery, Animal Planet and TLC) is within the genre (i.e. within the same product category) or covers different genres. It also examines the advantages for viewers to choose specific TV operators and possible actions by viewers when particular programmes are not available. In addition, it provides information on the habits of consumers and the criteria they use when selecting a TV operator, as well as on the advantages linked to the different operators.

The survey studies a sampling of 1020 inhabitants of Latvia (ages 18-74) and shows that 44% of respondents are price sensitive when choosing a TV operator. The price is of greater importance for those with lower incomes (monthly family income below € 570) and senior viewers in the 61-74 age group.

Approximately one-third of the respondents (with monthly family income above € 850) and young people in the 18-25 age group indicate the composition of television packages as the main criterion when choosing a television operator.

The selection of a television operator in Latvia also depends on the region where the viewer lives. Approximately 11% of all respondents claim their television operator is the only one accessible to them. For example, in Riga, this is a criterion for 8% of respondents, whereas in one region – Latgale – 18% of viewers claim their operator is the only one available.

For viewers of the five specialised channels investigated, the composition of the package is more important than for other viewers, when it comes to choosing their television operator. Among the investigated channels, viewers name Eurosport, Discovery Channel and Animal Planet popular. The channels with the highest ratings are Discovery Channel and Animal Planet. 38% of the respondents say these programmes offer content that other programmes do not. These programmes are available to two-thirds of viewers. The least popular of the investigated channels is TLC, which is accessible to approximately one-third of viewers.

Most viewers state that the investigated channels cannot be replaced with others, although only one-quarter of viewers would consider changing operator if these channels became unavailable. A higher percentage – 31% of viewers – would consider changing operator if Eurosport2 became inaccessible.

• Latvia: The Competition Council launches Inquiry into Supply of Information Systems to Public AuthoritiesIn February 2014, the Competition Council (CC) started an inquiry into the supply of information systems to public authorities. The CC intends to examine whether competition restrictions in the related markets of development and maintenance of database and information systems may impact competition in the sector concerned.

The CC’s decision to open this sector inquiry follows the findings in the following cases.

At the end of 2013, the CC imposed a fine on one of the largest developers of accounting software in Latvia, SIA FMS Software. The undertaking was found to have impeded competition for five years among its own software distributors, which sell the software Horizon and Horizon Start and the related maintenance and consulting services, thereby keeping clients – enterprises and public authorities – from benefiting from competition among distributors. In another case, the CC fined SIA Transporta telemātikas sistēmas, which develops and maintains a public database owned by the Road Transport Administration, for having abused its dominant position. The undertaking refused to give access to the information that was necessary for the business activities of competitors, and thereby, restricted competition.

The CC’s inquiry will examine whether distributors and maintainers of information systems set favourable conditions for themselves in their agreements with their clients relating to the transfer, use, maintenance and further development of the software, thereby creating unjustified advantages, not only in the market for distribution and maintenance of information systems, but also affecting competition in related markets.

The sector inquiry will cover only information systems provided by the private sector to public authorities.

20

• The Netherlands: The Authority for Consumers and Markets develops new Consultation Method to set its Agenda 2014-2015On 5 February 2014, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) launched an online consultation on its strategic agenda, using a multimedia project. The ACM set out six selected topics to focus on for the period 2014-2015, and opened up this agenda for discussion with stakeholders on a separate website. On 13 May, the results of the project were published. The interactive project not only helped the ACM to gather market-specific information, but also to generate support for its actions, and advocate the importance of competition and regulation within certain key markets where the ACM identifies possible problems.

The ACM operates in a context where different opinions are voiced on the pros and cons of the free market system, and where the protection of public interests must meet ever stricter requirements. To successfully operate in such a social context, the ACM chooses to be open to stakeholders. Indeed, openness is a core value for the ACM, and it wishes to be engaged in a permanent and constructive dialogue with its stakeholders in order to identify broader social trends affecting its areas of competence. To keep this communication stream flowing, the ACM believes it has to be where consumers are: on social media.

The topics selected for the Agenda 2014-2015 were: online consumers, the willingness to invest in energy and telecom networks, public procurement, healthcare consumers, switching barriers for consumers (particularly in health insurance and energy contracts) and entry to the banking industry. Every week, different stakeholder groups were approached, depending on the topic for consultation. Participants in the discussion were, however, not restricted to these groups alone. The ACM illustrated the topics with animation videos, making the forum easily accessible for all interest groups. ACM experts were assigned to each topic, and personally interacted with stakeholders.

173 people took part in the discussions, providing the ACM with valuable market insights which will be used to determine its approach to the strategic themes. The ACM sees room for further improvement of the online consultation using its experience with the ACM agenda.

See further on the ACM website.Spokesperson: Mr. Murco Mijnlieff, +31 70 7222 727 or +31 6 2279 3063 (outside office hours). Alternatively, emails can be sent to the ACM press office at pers@acm.nl.

• Poland: New Competition Policy Strategy of the Office of Competition and Consumer ProtectionOn 20 February 2014, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) submitted for consultation the drafts of government documents on competition and consumer protection policy before their adoption by the Council of Ministers.

For the first time, documents outlining the priorities in competition and consumer policy have been prepared in parallel, giving full effect to the synergy of the topics. This approach means that UOKiK will have to consider these two aspects in every action it carries out. The goal is to ensure more effective protection of weaker market participants. The two documents will be implemented at the same time and will be in force for five years.

The document ‘Competition policy for 2014-2018’ states that UOKiK will continue focusing on detecting anti-competitive practices and on developing effective competition over the next five years. The fight against illegal practices will be facilitated, inter alia, by the use of new tools provided for in the draft amendment to the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (see ECN Brief 5/2013). For example, the new leniency plus programme will give undertakings additional means of cooperating with UOKiK. The programme will also offer a fine reduction to the leniency applicant when it brings evidence of a collusion, other than the one already under investigation.

Of particular priority for UOKiK is reinforcing the fight against bid rigging. UOKiK suggests increasing the level of detection of these practices by developing a screening programme, which would enable information on different tenders to be collected using analytical tools, and would thus facilitate the

21

process of uncovering competition irregularities in public tenders. UOKiK also intends to continue the cooperation it initiated last year with other State authorities (the Internal Security Agency, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Police and the Supreme Audit Office), as it increases the effectiveness of the fight against bid rigging.

Moreover, UOKiK emphasizes the importance of conducting sector inquiries as well as seeking the opinion of market participants, particularly in situations of abuse of dominant positions by strong market players. In these cases, UOKiK intends to perform market tests from now on in order to consult on the draft commitments with market participants before adopting them.

Finally, to meet the expectations of SMEs, mainly, UOKiK has committed to drawing up guidelines on settlements, commitment decisions and other procedural issues such as the treatment of business secrets.

See press release

• United Kingdom: The Competition and Markets Authority announces Programme of Work on BankingOn 11 March 2014, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced a short programme of work on banking, which will lead to a decision on whether or not to make a market investigation reference to be conducted by a CMA panel of independent members.

The CMA will build on the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) work in the sector, by concluding the market study into banking for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). It will also carry out a short update of the OFT’s 2013 review of personal current accounts.

The Financial Conduct Authority has been working closely with the OFT on the ongoing SME banking market study and will continue to do so with the CMA across this retail banking work programme.

Based on the OFT’s 2013 findings on personal current accounts and the work to date in the market study of SME banking, there appear to be important similarities between competition issues for personal current account customers and for SME customers, in particular:

• the banking providers operating in the sector;

• how dynamics of competition operate, and

• the way that personal and SME customers consume banking services, including levels of customer engagement with banking providers.

The CMA will consider, as part of the update of the review of personal current accounts, ongoing and planned steps taken in the sector. These include the effect of the introduction of the new seven-day Current Account Switching Service, the impact of the planned divestments by Lloyds Banking Group and by The Royal Bank of Scotland of parts of their retail banking businesses, and the forthcoming establishment of the Payment Systems Regulator.

The CMA will publish the findings of its work on both personal current accounts and SME banking during Summer 2014, including its provisional decision on whether or not the statutory criteria for making a market investigation reference are met and, if they are met, whether it would be appropriate for it to exercise its discretion to make a market investigation reference. It will then consult on that provisional decision. Following that consultation, the CMA will then make a final decision on those issues during Autumn 2014.

For more information, see press release

22

• United Kingdom: The Office for Gas and Electricity proposes Reference to Competition and Markets Authority to investigate Energy MarketOn 27 March 2014, the Office for Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem, the UK regulator for energy), the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a joint assessment of competition in the energy market, which found that competition in retail energy markets may not be achieving good outcomes for all consumers and small businesses.

The assessment identified weak competition between larger energy suppliers, low customer trust and engagement, and barriers to entry and expansion. The publication of the joint assessment follows detailed analysis conducted according to a framework published by the three organisations in December 2013. It was also informed by meetings with a wide range of industry players, consumer groups and other interested parties.

Ofgem has issued a provisional decision to make a market investigation reference (MIR) into the energy sector as a result. Should Ofgem decide, following consultation, that an MIR is appropriate, a CMA Group of independent Panel Members would conduct a more detailed inquiry.

For more information, see Consultation

• European Commission adopts revised Competition Regime for Technology Transfer Agreements The European Commission (Commission) adopted in March 2014 new competition rules for assessing technology transfer agreements, through which a licensor permits a licensee to exploit patents, know-how or software for the production of goods and services.

The revised rules entered into force on 1 May and update the previous regime. The rules aim to strengthen the incentives for research and innovation, facilitate diffusion of intellectual property and stimulate competition.

Licensing is vital for economic development and consumer welfare, as it helps to disseminate innovation and allows companies to integrate and use complementary technologies. However, licensing agreements can also have a stifling effect on competition. For instance, two competitors could use a license agreement to divide markets between them, or an important licensor could exclude competing technologies from the market through conditions in its licensing agreements. The new rules guide firms on how to avoid hindering competition and instead to license in ways that stimulate innovation and preserve a level playing field in the internal market.

The regime consists of two instruments. First, the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) creates a safe harbour for licensing agreements concluded between companies that have limited market power and that respect certain conditions set out in the TTBER. Such agreements are deemed to have no anti-competitive effects or, if they do, the positive effects outweigh the negative ones. Second, the Technology Transfer Guidelines (Guidelines) provide guidance on the application of the TTBER as well as on the application of EU competition law to technology transfer agreements that fall outside the safe harbour of the TTBER.

The changes in the revised TTBER and Guidelines are mainly incremental improvements. The choice to make only incremental changes reflects the positive experience of the Commission and national competition authorities with applying the rules, and the positive feedback received from stakeholders in two public consultations. The rules continue to recognise that licensing is in most cases pro-competitive, by promoting the diffusion of innovation and technology and strengthening incentives for research and development.

These are the main substantive changes in the revised TTBER and Guidelines:

Certain types of clauses are no longer automatically exempted under the safe harbour of the TTBER, but have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis because they may stifle competition or innovation. This concerns clauses which give the licensor the possibility to terminate an agreement if the licensee

23

OTHER ISSUES OF INTEREST

• The Netherlands: The Authority for Consumers and Markets hosts 2014 Conference on ‘Innovation in oversight/Oversight and innovation’In celebration of its first anniversary, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is organizing a one-day international conference on 20 June 2014. The theme of the conference is: Innovation in Oversight/Oversight and Innovation. Attendees will include high-level representatives from the corporate sector, academia, competition agencies and competition regulators.

Society has high expectations of regulators and market authorities when it comes to finding solutions to competition problems. At the same time, national budgets are shrinking, and the burden and costs of oversight are scrutinized. Regulators and market authorities therefore need to innovate in the development of their organization and methods. The ACM would like to encourage a discussion on the kinds of innovation that can make oversight more effective, but also on how oversight can contribute to innovation in the market. The ACM will therefore host a conference with prominent speakers such as Cass Sunstein and Bill Kovacic, who will talk about innovation in oversight, and Charles Leadbeater and Annet Aris, who will talk about oversight and innovation.

Innovation in oversightOne of the key elements of the ACM’s oversight philosophy is putting consumers in the spotlight. The ACM wishes to understand consumer behaviour better in order to become a more effective regulator. Knowing what influences consumer behaviour is essential to our work. Cass Sunstein, professor at Harvard Law School and co-author of Nudge (2008), will speak about the use of behavioural economics in oversight.

In a constantly changing environment, effective oversight can be a challenge. It is thus important to consider in what ways regulators can respond to these changes. One such response is doing what the ACM did just last year: combining general competition oversight, sector-specific regulation and consumer protection into a single authority. Bill Kovacic, the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, will speak about the benefits of these ‘multi-purpose’ authorities, and how such multi-purpose authorities can deal with new challenges.

challenges the validity of the IPR (so-called termination clauses) if the agreement is non-exclusive, and clauses that oblige a licensee to license any improvements it makes to the licensed technology back to the licensor on an exclusive basis.

The Commission has updated the Guidelines, in particular to include new guidance on ‘patent pools’ as well as a safe harbour for pro-competitive patent pools. Patent pools can give companies easier access to necessary IPR, such as standard essential patents, and ideally provide them with a one-stop-shop at a lower rate. To foster the creation of pro-competitive patent pools, the Guidelines now provide a safe harbour for the creation of and licensing out from patent pools.

The Guidelines also reflect the Commission’s recent experience in the area of reverse payment settlements/’pay for delay’ agreements and describe the potentially anti-competitive effects of such agreements.

The adopted TTBER and the Guidelines can be found here .

24

Oversight and innovationNew trends, such as consumers becoming producers and the issue of open innovation, affect the dynamics in markets around the globe. Market authorities need to take a step back and reflect on their current course of action. The question is whether they are still equipped with the tools to operate effectively amidst these changes. Charles Leadbeater, former advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair and author of We Think (2009), will speak about what these trends and changes in society mean, and how they might affect markets and oversight.

Regulators work in an increasingly complex environment. Game-changing innovations are introduced one after another, driving economic growth. In this process effective regulation and oversight are of major importance. Annet Aris, adjunct professor of strategy at INSEAD and board member of Kabel Deutschland and Sanoma Group, will speak about how regulators can help markets become or remain innovative.

See further information on the ACM website.

Spokesperson: Mr. Murco Mijnlieff, +31 70 7222 727 or +31 6 2279 3063 (outside office hours). Alternatively, emails can be sent to the ACM press office at pers@acm.nl

• Hungary: Similar Countries with similar Competition Regimes – Report of Visegrad 4 Competition Conference The importance of cooperation in competition matters among the Visegrad Group countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Hungary) was highlighted in the Visegrad 4 Competition conference organised by Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH - Hungarian Competition Authority) on 20 March 2014 in Budapest. Miklós Juhász, Head of the GVH, emphasised the fact that the competition authorities of the Visegrad countries all share the same problems and that cooperation is the most effective tool in the fight against them.

From the perspective of regional stability and growth, cooperation among the four Central European countries is of paramount importance. Mr János Fónagy, parliamentary secretary of state in the Hungarian Ministry of National Development, spoke in his opening speech about how cooperation among the Visegrad countries has become a kind of trademark, which has a good chance of developing into a notable competitive economic entity within the EU. He also added that without an effective EU competition policy the Visegrad countries cannot enjoy the advantages of the internal market. Consequently, free market and competition should not be subject to any limitations.

In addition to the V4 members, three other neighbouring countries, Austria, Romania and Slovenia, gave presentations on their recent developments and practices. During the conference, many issues were raised which were found to be similar. It was underlined that effective cartel enforcement is of significant importance in all the participating countries, and so voluntary convergence with regard to investigative tools can be noticed in many of the jurisdictions. For example, Hungary adopted an informant reward scheme in 2010 and Slovakia also created a similar whistle-blower system in 2014. The Czech Republic and Hungary have also introduced settlement procedures.

It is important to highlight the achievements of the Romanian competition authority in the application of the Aggregate Index of Competitive Pressure (AICP), which enables the authority to allocate its resources better. Furthermore, the AICP is a good addition to a competition authority’s toolbox due to its contribution to the enhancement of competition culture.

For a better overview of existing competition problems, speakers from not only the national competition authorities, but also non-governmental agencies from the V4 countries were invited to talk about their experiences with damage claims in cartel cases. A long and fruitful debate evolved, and it was revealed that no significant private enforcement case has taken place so far in the Visegrad Group countries.

The positive feedback after the event led the organisers to believe that the conference provided a good start for the series of V4 competition conferences envisaged for the future. It strengthened cooperation among the Visegrad Group countries, thus enhancing future exchanges of experiences on the similar challenges for these countries.

25

• The Netherlands: The Authority for Consumers and Markets hosts Meeting of ECN Members on Construction Materials A group of members of the European Competition Network (ECN) recently gathered in The Hague to discuss competition issues relating to the Construction Materials Sector.

The meeting dealt with different markets within the sector, the behaviour of market participants and the activities of the different competition authorities in addressing any problems within the Construction Materials Sector.

The meeting led to reinforced awareness by the competition authorities of the need for close international cooperation.

The ECN is committed to addressing competition problems in this sector where appropriate.

Press spokesperson: Murco Mijnlieff, at +31 70 722 727 or +31 6 2279 3063 (outside office hours). Alternatively, you can send an email to the ACM press office at pers@acm.nl.Contact: Jeroen Boot (Jeroen.Boot@acm.nl, +31 70 722 2064)

• Slovakia: Report on International Conference on Current Trends in Slovak and European Competition Law On 14 May 2014, the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (AMO) in cooperation with the Faculty of Law of Comenius University in Bratislava organised a second annual conference on ‘Current Trends in Slovak and European Competition Law’. More than two hundred participants and speakers from six countries met in the great Hall of Comenius University in Bratislava.

The conference continued the tradition of regular professional events aimed at raising awareness of the importance of competition law and its context in European practice. The agenda reflected the need to bring about an exchange of practical experience between the European Commission, and national competition authorities as well as with the academic world and the business community.

The conference was opened by Professor Ms. Mária Patakyová, Vice-Rector for legislation at Comenius University, and Mr. Tibor Menyhart, Chairman of the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic. Thirteen speakers from the European Commission as well as from the Slovak, Czech, Swedish, Polish and Austrian competition authorities and from undertakings, attorneys and academics presented their views on hot competition law issues in four panels.

The first panel gave an overview of new competition policy developments in the European Union, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. It included information on decisions of competition authorities, courts and legislation.

The second panel on ‘Exchange of Sensitive Information and ‘Hub & Spoke’ Cartels’ discussed the aims, effects, different forms of exchange of sensitive information as well as the functioning of hub & spoke cartels. Experts from foreign competition authorities presented their practical experience gained during the assessment of anti-competitive agreements.

The third panel was devoted to ‘Remedies in Merger Control‘. The speaker from the AMO compared proposed changes in the amendment to the Act on Protection of Competition with the current legislation. It was interesting to compare the practical problems faced by the competition authorities on one side and private companies on the other when it comes to assessing mergers and proposing remedies.

The last panel on ‘Assessment of Buyer Power and Economic Dependency in Competition Policy´ dealt with the theoretical concept of buyer power and economic dependency and the Commission’s approach, as well as recent initiatives at EU level in the food supply chain (such as for example, the Supply Chain Initiative which contributes to the implementation of an EU-wide code of good practices in the food sector since 2013). By way of conclusion, the findings of an extensive survey conducted in 2013 by the

26

AMO on the retail food market (milk and milk products) were presented.

See press release (in English)

PERSONALIA

• Poland: Appointment of new President of the Office of Competition and Consumer ProtectionOn 20 March 2014, Prime Minister Donald Tusk appointed Mr Adam Jasser as President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK).

Mr Adam Jasser served as Secretary of State in the Chancellery of the Prime Minister from March 2010 to March 2014. He was Secretary of Economic Council to the Prime Minister and oversaw the analytical and policy impact assessment department. He coordinated the government’s legislative agenda, with special focus on economic policy, pension reform, business environment and energy. He co-designed and supervised an overhaul of the government’s impact assessment process.

In 2009-2010, Adam Jasser was Programme Director and Board Member of demosEuropa – Centre for European Strategy, focusing on European economic and political issues. Before that, he spent almost 20 years at Reuters news agency, in roles ranging from translator and head of economic reporting in Warsaw, to bureau chief in Frankfurt and regional editor for central Europe, Balkans and Turkey.

Adam Jasser graduated from the University of Warsaw with a Master’s degree in English Philology.

ANNUAL REPORTS

• Ireland: The Competition Authority publishes its 2013 Annual ReportThe Competition Authority published its 2013 Annual Report on 27 February 2014.

In 2013, the Authority received 34 new complaints of alleged criminal cartel behaviour and 92 new complaints of anti-competitive agreements or abuses of dominant market position.

The report outlines the current case against the Irish Medical Organisation in relation to the withdrawal of GPs from certain services, which in the Authority’s view, is anti-competitive. The case is due to be heard before the High Court on 23 May 2014.

There was an increase in the number of mergers and acquisitions notified to the Authority, with 37 notifications received in 2013. Also of note is that following a consultation which began in September 2013, the Authority published new Guidelines for Merger Analysis in December.

Also in 2013, the Authority published a comprehensive report on Competition in the Irish Ports Sector. The report made six recommendations to increase competition between and within ports in Ireland (see ECN Brief 5/2013).

The full version of the Competition Authority 2013 Annual Report is available here.

Press spokesperson: Clodagh Coffey, Communications Manager (email: cc@tca.ie Tel: 00 353 1 8045406).

27

• European Commission publishes its 2013 Report on Competition Policy focusing on competitivenessOn 6 May 2014, the European Commission published its 2013 Report on Competition Policy, which provides an account of the key policy developments, competition enforcement and advocacy initiatives pursued in 2013. The Report shows how competition enforcement helps promoting growth and competitiveness across the EU.

Key policy initiatives in 2013 included the proposal for a directive to facilitate antitrust damages actions. The directive will remove obstacles which currently prevent victims of antitrust infringements from seeking and obtaining compensation for the harm they have suffered before national courts. The formal approval of the proposal by the Council is expected before or shortly after the summer.

The State Aid Modernisation initiative, made significant progress. In June 2013 the Commission adopted new guidelines on Regional Aid. In July the Council adopted the procedural and the enabling regulations, the first making procedures more efficient, and the second enabling the Commission to exempt new categories of aid from prior notification.

The Commission also adapted the crisis rules for State aid to banks. Banks with a capital shortfall have to obtain shareholders and subordinated debt-holders’ contribution before resorting to State capital. This helps to level the playing field between similar banks located in different Member States.

The Commission also adopted new rules to simplify merger control in December 2013. The new rules extend the scope of the simplified procedure, streamline the pre-notification process and reduce the requested information for notification. These rules alleviate the burden on the companies and on the Commission alike.

In its enforcement actions the Commission focused on sectors of strategic importance for growth and competitiveness such as financial services, energy and the digital economy.

The Commission continued to be very active in its fight against cartels. It fined car part suppliers for their participation in cartels for the supply of wire harnesses; it imposed sanctions for illegal agreements between pharmaceutical companies to delay the market entry of generic medicines (for citalopram by Lundbeck and Fentanyl by Janssen-Cilag); it fined eight banks a total of over €1 700 000 000 for participating in cartels for financial derivatives based on the LIBOR and EURIBOR interest rate benchmarks; and sent a Statement of Objections to some of the world’s largest investment banks about a suspected collusion in the market for credit default swaps (CDS).

In energy, a key input across economic sectors, the Commission focused on facilitating access to the energy market and encouraging investment. In this context, the Commission accepted legally binding commitments from ČEZ, the Czech electric incumbent and it continued to investigate power exchanges. New State aid rules for assessing allowances granted under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) came into force and the Commission approved national schemes for several Member States. These rules are aimed at limiting the impact of climate change provisions on industrial competitiveness, especially for energy-intensive industry.

In the digital economy, ICT and media sectors the Commission fined Telefónica and Portugal Telecom for agreeing not to compete against each other on the Iberian telecommunications markets. Investigations continued into the potential abuse of dominance in online search and advertising (the Google investigation) and in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for mobile communications.

In the context of competition advocacy, co-operation with competition authorities around the world helped to tackle the challenges posed by the growing internationalisation of business. The Commission signed a so-called “second generation” co-operation agreement with Switzerland, which allows exchange of information concerning investigations. In 2013, the Commission also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Competition Commission of India.

The full text of the 2013 report on competition policy and the accompanying staff working document are available here.

28

Contacts :Antoine Colombani (+32 2 297 45 13, Twitter: @ECspokesAntoine)Marisa Gonzalez Iglesias (+32 2 295 19 25)Yizhou Ren (+32 2 299 48 89)

TRAINING OF JUDGESThe new 2014 Justice Annual Work Programme was adopted on 24 April 2014 and the new Call for proposals on ‘Training of national judges in EU Competition Law and judicial cooperation’ will be published by the end of May on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/calls/proposals_open.html as well as the Official Journal.

The objective of this call for proposals is to co-finance projects aimed at promoting judicial cooperation between, and the training for, national judges in the context of enforcing of the European competition rules. This includes public and private enforcement of both the Antitrust rules and the State aid rules. The final aim is to ensure the consistent application of EU competition law by national courts.

The announced budget is 1.000.000 EUR.

Projects should address at least one of the following areas:

• Improvement of knowledge, application and interpretation of EU competition law;

• Support to National Judicial Institutions on Competition Law knowledge;

• Improving and/or creating cooperation/networks;

• Development of legal linguistic skills of national judges;