On June 9^th, 2026, the EU Commission announced that it is imposing interim measures on Meta while the investigation on a possible abuse of dominance is carried out. The antitrust investigation, opened in December 2025, means to evaluate the legality of Meta’s revised policy which blocks access for AI providers, other than Meta AI, to WhatsApp.[1]

INDEX

• FACTUAL BACKGROUND
• LEGAL BACKGROUND
• THE INTERIM MEASURE
• IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Meta, formerly known as Facebook, acquired WhatsApp in 2014. The merger was given the greenlight by the EU Commission after an extensive study on possible anticompetitive effects in three different relevant markets: consumer communication services, social networking services, and online advertising. The assessment was based on information and promises shared by Facebook regarding the unlikelihood of automated matching between Facebook users’ accounts and WhatsApp users’ accounts following the merger. Nevertheless, in 2016, WhatsApp announced updates to its terms of service and privacy policy, including the possibility of linking WhatsApp users' phone numbers with Facebook users' identities.[2] The Commission reacted by fining Facebook €110 million for providing misleading information about the takeover after finding that, contrary to Facebook’s statements from 2014, its staff were aware of the possibility of matching the platforms’ accounts and identities.

Facebook infringed Regulation 1/2003 by intentionally or negligently providing the incorrect or misleading information to the Commission. The fine was meant to act as a deterrent proportional to the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement, after taking into consideration all mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It was the Commission’s first ever decision involving the imposition of fines on a company for providing incorrect or misleading information since the entry into force of the 2004 Merger Regulation. There were no other measures taken aside from the fine and the merger continued to set Facebook (now Meta) on the course toward achieving and maintaining a dominant position status. This is the status that proves problematic for the current event.

In October 2025, Meta announced that it would update its WhatsApp Business Terms, effectively banning third-party general purpose Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) assistants from the consumer communication application. The Commission has considered WhatsApp to hold a dominant position in the market since at least January 2023. Therefore, the update to the Terms is considered, at first sight, to be a possible abuse of dominant position, as competing general-purpose AI assistants are precluded from using the platform’s Business Application Programming Interface (“API”).

Starting mid-January 2026, the only AI assistant available on WhatsApp was Meta’s own AI tool (“Meta AI”). The complete exclusion of all competitors was lessened on March 4^th, when a revision of the policy accepted third-party general-purpose AI assistants again on the platform, but levied an access fee which is being classified as a practice possibly equivalent to the previous access ban. Teresa Ribera, executive Vice-President of the Directorate-General for Competition, stated that the fees were so elevated that they could not be economically sustained by competitors.

Formal proceedings were opened by the Commission in December 2025. The decision to initiate antitrust proceedings covered the EEA except for Italy, as the Italian National Competition Authority (AGCM) imposed its own interim measures on Meta in December. Shortly after, a Statement of Objections was released, setting out the Commission’s preliminary view that Meta breached EU antitrust rules by excluding third party AI assistants from accessing and interacting with users on WhatsApp.[3] Meta's conduct risks blocking competitors from entering or expanding in the rapidly growing market for AI assistants.

April 2026 marked the expansion of the investigation to Italy, allowing the study to analyze conduct changes since the initiation of proceedings.

Meta’s response denounces the opening of the investigation as they find that the Commission’s approach imposes unfair conditions, allowing "OpenAI and some of the largest companies in the world [to] use the paid-for WhatsApp Business product for free," a Meta spokesperson said in an email.[4] An appeal will be filed by Meta as they find the investigation to be a “regulatory overreach subsidized by many European companies that pay.”

The substantive investigation into the merits of the case is still active and ongoing.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

The investigation of case AT.40134 [CD1] is carried out through the lens of the antitrust laws set out in Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement which prohibit the abuse of dominant positions that may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition within the Single Market.

The proceedings are carried out within the rules and limitations set out by Article 11(6) of Council Regulation No. 1/2003 (Cooperation between Commission and National Authorities)[5] and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation No. 773/2004 (Initiation of Proceedings)[6].

Pursuant to Article 8(1) Regulation 1/2003, interim measures may be imposed in cases of urgency due to the risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition assessed on a basis of a prima facie finding of infringement. Although such measures are always imposed for a limited amount of time, they can be renewed until the end of the investigation (by June 2029 at the latest for the case at hand).

Meta faces a potential fine of up to 10% of its total turnover in the year preceding the alleged infringement if found to have breached the EU antitrust regulation and may also be subject to daily periodic penalty payments not exceeding 5% of the average daily turnover in the business year preceding the infringement if it does not comply without delay.

THE INTERIM MEASURE

The Commission has concluded that interim measures are warranted to prevent serious and irreparable damage to competition in the growing market for general-purpose AI assistants as Meta holds a dominant position in the market for consumer communication applications and is, at first sight, abusing this position by blocking access to the WhatsApp API. The refusal to provide access to an infrastructure developed for and previously open to third parties created an urgent need to prevent damage to the competition structure of the AI assistant market by stalling the growth of smaller players and new entrants that could possibly challenge large incumbents.

The decision orders Meta to re-instate access for third-party general purpose AI assistants to the platform’s Business API and to re-establish the same terms and conditions that were enforced before the policy change in October 2025, when access to the Programming Interface was free of charge. Those terms are meant to be enforced until the Commission adopts a final decision on the case. Compliance must be immediate, as Meta has five days to implement the measure.

Meta may also appeal the decision ordering the interim measures before the EU Courts pursuant to Section 17 of the Commission Antitrust Manual.

IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION

Although Regulation No. 1/2003 expressly provides for the ability to impose interim measures if, at first sight, there is an infringement of competition law rules, this is only the second decision imposing such measures since 2019. The first and last instance of application of Art. 8(1) was in relation to the Broadcom case (AT.40608). Broadcom was found to have engaged in exclusionary practices and was subject to the first enforcement of interim measures implemented by the Commission. The interim measures decision, which had an implementation duration of three years, was shortly followed by a commitment decision (ex Art. 9 Regulation No. 1/2003) reflecting commitments offered by Broadcom and revised through a market test. Indeed, the commitment decision built on the applied interim measures, extending their effects for an additional seven years. Furthermore, the commitments covered additional areas of the market and more service providers who were in business with Broadcom.[7] Since then, the Commission has only once announced the possible use of interim measures in an investigation on potential competition restrictions on Lufthansa transatlantic routes to and from several airports in the EEA area[8], but it ultimately decided to abandon its request.

We may conclude that interim measures and commitment decisions are connected, as the former appear to suspend problematic behaviors and create incentives for the company under investigation to quickly find a lasting solution to the identified concerns. A commitment decision may also result in the Commission closing the investigation and simply monitoring the status, implementation, and results of said commitments.[9] Although the Commission may, upon request or of its own initiative, reopen the proceedings (e.g. if the undertaking concern acts contrary to their commitments), the prospect of closing the investigation early is a favourable one for the undertakings concerned. No reasonable economic agent wishes to remain involved in an investigation that can span years, under constant hawk-eye monitoring, and possible heavy fines and remedies.

It seems opportune to now start keeping an eye on other future uses of interim measures by the Commission as a tool to push undertakings to step back in line promptly in a way that spares time, money, and other resources that would otherwise be spent on a lengthy investigation. The transition from the monitoring of the implementation of interim measures to the monitoring of commitments is natural and efficient and it is something we are likely to see more of in future antitrust and competition regulation enforcement.

[1] Commission imposes interim measures on Meta to preserve free access to WhatsApp for rival AI assistants. European Commission Press Release, 9 June 2026. Commission imposes interim measures on Meta

[2] Commission Fines Facebook €110 million for providing misleading information about WhatsApp takeover, 18 May 2017. IP_17_1369_EN.pdf

[3] Commission Statement of Objections (Meta), 9 February 2026. AT_41034_606.pdf

[4] EU orders Meta to open WhatsApp to rival AI chatbots, BBC, Tom Singleton, 9 June 2026. EU orders Meta to open WhatsApp to rival AI chatbots

[5] Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/1/2009-07-01

[6] Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.  http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/773/2015-08-06

[7] Ex post evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of EU antitrust remedies GA-Alliance Report 2025

[8] Case AT.40940 Press Release on Supplementary Statement of Objections to Lufthansa to prevent harm to Frankfurt-New York air passengers, 15 January 2025. Press Release

[9] A First in 20 Years: EU Commission imposes interim measures on Broadcom - Lexology

 [CD1]Exclusion of AI competitors from WhatsApp within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation No 773/2004

Sentenza della Corte di giustizia nella causa C-588/24, Imballaggi Piemontesi S.r.l. contro Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Con sentenza pubblicata in data 15 gennaio 2026, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea si è pronunciata sul rinvio pregiudiziale proposto dal Consiglio di Stato con ordinanza del 26 agosto 2024,  con cui è stata sottoposta alla Corte di Giustizia la seguente questione pregiudiziale: «Se gli articoli 41 e 47 [della Carta] e l’articolo [6] CEDU ostino ad una disciplina quale quella nazionale che, in materia di vigilanza su intese restrittive della libertà di concorrenza, ai fini dell’esercizio dei poteri sanzionatori e fermo restando l’esercizio dei poteri conformativi, non prevede espressamente la natura perentoria del termine di conclusione del procedimento fissato dall’[AGCM] con la comunicazione di contestazione degli addebiti, consentendo all’Autorità di prorogare unilateralmente il detto temine di conclusione, con atti di proroga motivati, al sopravvenire di circostanze che determinano un ampliamento oggettivo o soggettivo dell’accertamento».

La domanda è stata sollevata nell’ambito di una controversia tra la società Imballaggi Piemontesi S.r.l. (“Imballaggi Piemontesi”) e l’Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato(“AGCM”), relativamente alle sanzioni irrogate alla società per la partecipazione al cartello del cartone ondulato. In particolare, con delibera del 22 marzo 2017, l’AGCM ha avviato il procedimento istruttorio ai sensi dell’articolo 14 della legge n. 287/90, fissando il termine di conclusione al 31 maggio 2018. Nel corso dell’istruttoria, l’Autorità ha esteso il procedimento sia dal punto di vista soggettivo, coinvolgendo altre società, sia dal punto di vista oggettivo, includendo nuove condotte, differendo conseguentemente il termine per la conclusione del procedimento istruttorio prima al 31 dicembre 2018 e poi per la seconda volta al 19 luglio 2019. Con provvedimento n. 27849 del 17 luglio 2019, l’Autorità ha accertato la partecipazione di Imballaggi Piemontesi a un’intesa restrittiva della concorrenza nel mercato della produzione e commercializzazione di fogli in cartone ondulato (c.d. “intesa fogli”), irrogando una sanzione di € 6.147.746. Il T.A.R. Lazio ha respinto il ricorso proposto dalla società, mentre il Consiglio di Stato ha accolto l’appello limitatamente alla determinazione della sanzione. Imballaggi Piemontesi ha proposto un ricorso per revocazione avverso tale decisione, eccependo la tardività del provvedimento sanzionatorio per violazione del termine di conclusione del procedimento istruttorio, contestando la qualificazione del termine come meramente ordinatorio e non perentorio, e chiedendo al Consiglio di Stato di sollevare una questione pregiudiziale davanti alla Corte di giustizia relativamente alla natura perentoria del termine di conclusione del procedimento istruttorio fissato dall’AGCM nell’atto di avvio del procedimento ai sensi dell’art. 6, comma 3, del d.P.R. n. 217 del 1998. 

Con la sentenza in commento, la Corte di giustizia ha confermato che “le autorità nazionali garanti della concorrenza, qualora ciò risulti necessario per essere in grado di irrogare sanzioni effettive e dissuasive per infrazioni al diritto della concorrenza dell’Unione, devono poter differire il termine di conclusione della fase istruttoria di detta procedura”^[1]. In particolare, con riferimento alla possibilità di differire il termine di conclusione della fase istruttoria fissato dall’autorità nazionale nella comunicazione degli addebiti, la Corte ha ribadito che le autorità nazionali garanti della concorrenza devono poter attribuire un diverso grado di priorità alle denunce loro sottoposte, disponendo a tal fine di un ampio margine di discrezionalità. Ne consegue che l’autorità può trovarsi costretta a differire il termine di conclusione di una procedura d’infrazione, anche al fine di dare priorità ad altri procedimenti. A ciò si aggiunge anche che, spesso, i casi in materia di diritto della concorrenza dell’Unione richiedono una complessa analisi materiale ed economica ed è altamente probabile che un’autorità nazionale si veda costretta ad adottare numerosi atti e misure istruttorie, che inevitabilmente prolungano la durata della procedura d’infrazione. Secondo la Corte, poi, un divieto assoluto di differire il termine di conclusione della fase istruttoria di una procedura d’infrazione potrebbe ostacolare l’irrogazione di sanzioni effettive e dissuasive per infrazioni del diritto dell’Unione in materia di concorrenza, rendendo l’applicazione delle relative norme praticamente impossibile o eccessivamente difficile, in violazione del principio di effettività. La Corte ha, pertanto, confermato la possibilità per le autorità nazionali garanti della concorrenza di differire il termine di conclusione della fase istruttoria quando ciò risulti necessario ai fini dell’irrogazione delle sanzioni. 

Tale differimento non può, tuttavia, comportare il superamento di un termine ragionevole entro il quale la procedura deve essere conclusa, da valutare alla luce delle circostanze di ciascun caso, della complessità del procedimento, del comportamento delle parti ecc. La Corte ha precisato che un eventuale differimento: 

• deve essere debitamente motivato dall’autorità nazionale;
• deve essere comunicato il prima possibile all’impresa interessata;     
• deve essere assoggettabile ad un controllo giurisdizionale. 

La Corte ha, infine, ricordato che un’eventuale violazione del principio del rispetto del termine ragionevole può giustificare l’annullamento di una decisione soltanto qualora comporti una lesione dei diritti della difesa dell’impresa interessata. Come già affermato dal Consiglio di Stato, nel presente caso la società Imballaggi Piemontesi non ha dimostrato che il differimento del termine di conclusione del procedimento istruttorio abbia pregiudicato l’esercizio dei suoi diritti della difesa. 

Alla luce di queste considerazioni, la Corte ha dichiarato che “[l]’articolo 101 TFUE, letto alla luce del principio generale del diritto ad un buon andamento dell’amministrazione, dell’articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea nonché del principio di effettività, deve essere interpretato nel senso che: esso non osta a una normativa nazionale che, nell’ambito di un procedimento diretto all’accertamento di una pratica anticoncorrenziale condotto da un’autorità nazionale garante della concorrenza, non prevede espressamente che il termine di conclusione della fase istruttoria del procedimento in parola, fissato da tale autorità nella comunicazione degli addebiti, abbia natura perentoria, cosicché detta autorità può differire unilateralmente tale termine, con atti motivati sottoposti a controllo giurisdizionale, al sopravvenire di circostanze che determinino un ampliamento dell’oggetto di detto procedimento o del numero delle imprese in esso coinvolte, a condizione che un siffatto differimento non abbia come conseguenza un superamento del termine ragionevole entro il quale tale fase istruttoria deve essere conclusa”.

[1] Sentenza C-588/24, par. 62. 

GA-ALLIANCE SBARCA IN PAKISTAN: SIGLATA PARTNERSHIP STRATEGICA CON AXIS LAW CHAMBERS

MILANO – 29 gennaio 2026

GA-Alliance, studio legale e fiscale globale che conta oltre 2.600 professionisti in 80 paesi, annuncia l’ingresso nel mercato pakistano. La partnership strategica con Axis Law Chambers, primario studio legale full-service della regione, segna un’ulteriore espansione del network di GA-Alliance, che oggi copre geografie che generano quasi il 90% del PIL mondiale.

L’accordo rafforza l’impegno di GA-Alliance nel perseguire la propria strategia "one-stop-shop". Integrando le competenze locali con i più elevati standard globali, l'Alleanza offre ai clienti un unico punto di accesso efficiente per ogni esigenza legale e fiscale. Questo modello elimina le complessità legate alla gestione di molteplici consulenti in diverse giurisdizioni, offrendo un’esperienza coordinata e fluida che mette al centro la chiarezza e la crescita del business.

Axis Law Chambers apporta all'Alleanza una reputazione d'eccellenza, in particolare nei mandati cross-border ad alto valore aggiunto e nella consulenza su temi regolamentari complessi. Costantemente parte degli studi segnalati da Chambers and Partners e The Legal 500, Axis Law si distingue per l’attività transazionale nel corporate, fusioni e acquisizioni (M&A), diritto del lavoro, proprietà intellettuale, investimenti esteri, partenariati pubblico-privati, governance societaria, antitrust, fisco, data protection e compliance con normative di settore. Lo studio assiste clienti in settori chiave come per esempio energia, oil & gas, minerario, sanitario, telecomunicazioni, automotive, servizi finanziari, difesa, retail, manifatturiero, agricoltura, media, IT, logistica, immobiliare e organizzazioni non profit.

Inoltre, Axis Law vanta una delle practice di dispute resolution più autorevoli del Pakistan, includendo contenzioso e arbitrato internazionale, con una solida esperienza in procedimenti presso ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, con sede a Washinton DC e parte della Banca Mondiale), ICC (International Chamber of Commerce, con sede a Parigi) e LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration, con sede a Londra). Questa profondità di competenze garantisce ai clienti di GA-Alliance un supporto di massimo livello nel quinto paese più popoloso al mondo, una delle economie più dinamiche del continente asiatico.

Francesco Sciaudone, Managing Partner di GA-Alliance, ha sottolineato l’importanza strategica dell’operazione: “Il nostro ingresso in Pakistan attraverso la partnership con Axis Law Chambers è un ulteriore passo che rafforza il nostro percorso di crescita globale. In GA-Alliance, l’obiettivo è semplificare la complessità per i nostri clienti. Estendendo il nostro modello ‘one-stop-shop’ a uno studio pakistano di eccellenza, sempre più siamo in grado di offrire ai nostri clienti la possibilità di operare con fiducia in un numero elevatissimo di mercati nel mondo. Non stiamo solo espandendo la nostra presenza geografica, stiamo potenziando un ecosistema sofisticato dove le best practice internazionali e la precisione incontrano la leadership del mercato locale per rispondere alle necessità dei clienti in modo semplice, diretto e altamente efficiente.”

GA-Alliance

Con oltre 2.600 professionisti in 80 paesi nel mondo, GA-Alliance è uno studio legale e fiscale globale con profonde radici europee, che unisce una solida tradizione giuridica a una vasta presenza internazionale. Fondato su principi di eccellenza e innovazione, GA-Alliance offre competenze integrate e multidisciplinari, ponendosi come partner strategico per promuovere una crescita sostenibile in un contesto normativo in continua evoluzione.

Axis Law Chambers

Axis Law Chambers è un primario studio legale pakistano, riconosciuto per l’eccellenza nell’attività di consulenza societaria, transazionale e nella risoluzione di controversie commerciali. Con un team di oltre 30 professionisti e sette partner, lo studio assiste clienti nazionali e multinazionali in operazioni ad alto impatto, compliance regolatoria e complessi casi di dispute resolution, inclusi arbitrati internazionali.

Country

Event 22 Gen 2026 |16:00 – 18:00 | Webinar by GA-Alliance

Online Webinar Event

The finalized EU-Mercosur agreement is much more than a trade deal; it is a shift in the global regulatory landscape. For European companies, it represents the removal of billions in tariffs; for the legal and fiscal world, it introduces a complex web of new sustainability standards, intellectual property rules, and procurement opportunities.

Join us for this online workshop taking place on January 22, 2026, at 4.00pm (CET/GMT+1). We won’t just tell you what the agreement says – we will tell you what it means for your bottom line and how to position your business to thrive in this new economic corridor.

LINK AL WEBINAR

EVENT INVITATION : The EU-Mercosur agreement and the future of transatlantic business

About GA-Alliance

GA-Alliance – an international law and tax firm with a global network spanning 80 countries and a team of over 2,600 professionals – is uniquely positioned to bridge these two worlds. Our multidisciplinary expertise allows us to navigate the intersection of international trade law and cross-border tax strategy with unparalleled precision.

Find us in the LATAM Area:

Venezuela

Argentina

Bolivia

Brasile

Cile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Ecuador

El Salvador

Honduras

Messico

Panama

Paraguay

Perù

Repubblica Dominicana

Uruguay

This newsletter provides a selection of opinions and analysis from our EU legal experts on interesting policy developments, recent case law and new regulatory directions of major industry practices. It is released biweekly and covers areas such as: Competition Law, Sanctions, Trade, Energy, Finance, EU funds, Data IP and Privacy, Life Sciences, Transport and Court of Justice of the European Union news.

The aim is to provide an up–to–date tool for quick and easy consultation on the most current and important topics at EU level.

• Competition Law and State Aid
• Sanctions
• Trade
• Energy and Green Deal
• Banking & Finance
• EU Funds
• Life Sciences
• Transport and Electric Vehicles
• Data, IP and Privacy
• Consultions and Calls

The European Commission sends preliminary findings to Apple and opens additional non-compliance investigation against Apple under the Digital Markets Act (24.06.2024) – The European Commission has informed Apple of its preliminary view that its App Store rules are in breach of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), as they prevent app developers from freely steering consumers to alternative channels for offers and content. In addition, the Commission opened a new non-compliance procedure against Apple over concerns that its new contractual requirements for third-party app developers and app stores, including Apple's new “Core Technology Fee”, fall short of ensuring effective compliance with Apple's obligations under the DMA. If the Commission's preliminary views were to be ultimately confirmed, none of Apple's three sets of business terms would comply with Article 5(4) of the DMA, which requires gatekeepers to allow app developers to steer consumers to offers outside the gatekeepers' app stores, free of charge. The Commission would then adopt a non-compliance decision within 12 months from the opening of proceedings on 25^th March 2024.

• Link

Germany: the European Commission approves 3 billion euro German State aid scheme to support the development of Hydrogen Core Network (21.06.2024) – The European Commission has approved, under EU State aid rules, an estimated 3 billion euro German scheme to support the construction of the Hydrogen Core Network (‘HCN'). The measure will contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the EU Hydrogen Strategy and 'Fit for 55' package, by enabling the creation of hydrogen transmission infrastructure that is needed to foster the use of renewable hydrogen in industry and transport by 2030. The measure aims to facilitate investments in the construction of the HCN. Necessary investments include (i) repurposing of existing gas pipelines to transport hydrogen, and (ii) building new hydrogen pipelines and compressor stations. The construction and operation of the HCN will be financed by hydrogen transmission system operators (TSOs), who will be selected by the German federal network agency, Bundesnetzagentur. The aid will take the form of a State guarantee which will allow the TSOs to obtain more favourable loans to cover initial losses in the ramp-up phase of the HCN. At first, Germany expects only a small number of consumers to be using the network, and the tariffs will be lower than otherwise needed to cover relevant costs, to encourage this use and facilitate the uptake of hydrogen.

• Link

The European Commission carries out further unannounced antitrust inspections in tyres sector cartel investigation (18.06.2024) – The European Commission is carrying out unannounced inspections at the premises of a consultancy firm in two Member States. Inspections are conducted in the context of an investigation for which the Commission carried out inspections earlier in 2024, that saw as products concerned by the inspections new replacement tyres for passenger cars, vans, trucks and busses sold in the European Economic Area. The European Commission is concerned that price coordination took place amongst the inspected companies, including via public communications. In particular the European Commission is concerned that the consultancy firm may have facilitated or instigated the suspected price coordination amongst tyre manufacturers, which allegedly also used public communications channels to collude.

• Link

Italy: the European Commission approves 570 million euro Italian State aid scheme to reduce emissions in ports (17.06.2024) – The European Commission has approved, under EU State aid rules, a 570 million euro Italian scheme to incentivize ships to use shore-side electricity when they are at berth in maritime ports. The measure contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and noise in line with the objectives of the European Green Deal. Under the scheme, the aid takes the form of a reduction of up to 100% of the so-called ‘general system charges'. Those charges are included in the electricity price and aimed at financing certain public policy objectives, including renewable energy. The reduction will result in a lower electricity price for ship operators when purchasing shore-side electricity and will bring the cost of electricity at a competitive level with the cost of producing electricity on-board through fossil-fueled engines. By lowering the cost of shore-side electricity for ships, the measure will incentivize ship operators to opt for the more environmentally friendly electricity supply, thereby avoiding significant greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutants and noise emissions.

• Link

Germany: the European Commission opens in-depth State aid investigation into measures to support local bus transport operator WestVerkehr (13.06.2024) – The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation to assess whether certain support measures to German local public transport company WestVerkehr GmbH (‘WestVerkehr') are in line with EU State aid rules. The alleged aid measures are: (i) a direct award of a public service contract by the district of Heinsberg to WestVerkehr; (ii) a profit and loss transfer agreement between WestVerkehr and its majority shareholder NEW Kommunalholding GmbH; (iii) a payment into WestVerkehr's capital reserve by its minority shareholder Kreiswerke Heinsberg GmbH; and (iv) a current account agreement between WestVerkehr and Kreiswerke Heinsberg. NEW Kommunalholding and Kreiswerke Heinsberg are companies in which the district of Heinsberg holds shares. The Commission takes the preliminary view that these four measures constitute State aid.

• Link

The European Commission sends Statement of Objections to Alchem over first pharmaceutical cartel case in the EU (13.06.2024) – The European Commission has informed Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. and its subsidiary Alchem International (H.K.) Limited (together ‘Alchem') of its preliminary view that they have breached EU antitrust rules by participating in a long-lasting cartel concerning an important pharmaceutical product. If the Commission's preliminary view were confirmed, such behaviour would violate EU rules that prohibit anti-competitive business practices such as collusion on prices and market sharing. The sending of a Statement of Objections does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

• Link

Czech Republic: the European Commission calls for improvement of competition in organising waste collection and recovery in the packaging sector (11.06.2024) – The European Commission has informed Czechia that measures appointing EKO-KOM as the only company authorised for the collection and recovery of packaging waste for over two decades may be in breach of the EU competition rules. The Commission's preliminary view is that certain provisions of the Czech Packaging Act as well as Czechia's enforcement of such rules may have created significant entry barriers for rival companies. Such barriers include authorisation requirements that are very difficult to meet, such as strict contractual and financial conditions. The European Commission has voiced its competition concerns in the form of a Letter of Formal Notice. If the Commission's preliminary view is confirmed, this conduct would infringe Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU') in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU.

• Link

Hungary: the European Commission finds support for new auto parts plant in Észak Magyarország to be incompatible State aid (11.06.2024) – The European Commission has concluded that Hungary's plan to support the construction of a new automotive components plant in Észak Magyarország is not in line with EU State aid rules. Therefore, the aid cannot be granted by Hungary. Indeed. the available evidence showed that the beneficiary had decided to invest in Hungary without considering the public support and there was no sufficient evidence that the investment would take place in another location. Since the public support did therefore not have a real "incentive effect" and it did not effectively encourage GKN Automotive Hungary to invest in the specific region of Észak Magyarország, the aid is incompatible with EU State Aid rules. Therefore, the aid cannot be granted by Hungary.

• Link

The European Commission is taking decisive action against unfair trade practices in the Chinese medical device procurement market. For the first time, an investigation under the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) has been launched to address discrimination against European companies and products.

What's Happening?

• Consultations with Chinese authorities will take place over nine months.
• Member States will receive regular updates.
• A detailed report on findings and proposed actions will be shared with the European Parliament and Council.
• This initiative demonstrates our firm commitment to fair trade and equal market access.