UCI is the global advocacy organization for the sport of cycling, and all national cycling federations are UCI members and must comply with the UCI Constitution and Regulations, and decisions taken in line with them. The UCI Regulations include rules regarding the payment of prize money. Since the start of the 2019 cycling season, the prize management for men’s cycling has been conducted in accordance with the centralized prize management system devised by CPA (Association of Professional Cyclists). Central to this is the mandatory use of the so-called “Centralized Prize Management (CPM) Platform.” This is an IT platform, hosted and maintained by Matsport and managed by CPA, on which all data relevant to the settlement of prize monies are made visible. All payments are made by or on behalf of the organizer of a cycling event via the CPM platform to CPA, after deduction of the relevant taxes. Before the Dutch District Court in first instance, Cycling Service c.s. claimed that UCI c.s. violated the cartel prohibition provision of Article 101(1) on the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the dominance abuse prohibition provision of Article 102 TFEU by requiring the mandatory use of the CPM platform by cycling teams, cyclists, and race organizations. The District Court dismissed the claims of Cycling Service c.s., determining that the decision regarding the centralization of price management should not be considered an anticompetitive restriction by object. The District Court further ruled that Cycling Service c.s. had not put forward sufficient arguments regarding the delineation of the relevant market and that, therefore, it could not assess the alleged anticompetitive effects of the UCI’s decision. For the same reason, the existence of dominance within the meaning of 102 TFEU could not be established. The Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed Cycling Service c.s.’s arguments on appeal. 
 

Pursuant to its resolution published March 11, 2024, ICA adopted cumulative turnover thresholds which, if exceeded, make prior notification of an intended concentration to ICA mandatory. 

Starting March 11, 2024, undertakings are under an obligation to notify ICA of any merger or acquisition where (i) the aggregate nationwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned exceeds 567 million euros; and (ii) the individual nationwide aggregate turnover of at least two of the undertakings concerned exceeds 35 million euros. 

Such changes in the turnover thresholds—which do not have retroactive effect—are mandated by Article 16(1) of the Italian Competition Law, according to which the ICA must reassess such thresholds on an annual basis in the light of changes in the GDP price deflator index. 
 

On April 15, ICA announced it had closed the inquiry into the hearing-aid market opened in September 2023 pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Italian Competition law. 

The investigation produced two primary conclusions. First, confirming ICA’s concerns, there is a lack of transparency regarding the pricing and services in the hearing-aid market. Hearing aids and related services are usually sold together. Therefore, even if services represent the main cost for consumers, bundles are structured in a way that make it all but impossible for a consumer to get both technical and price information on each of the devices and the associated services. ICA alerted all relevant authorities about this issue, advocating for an intervention to ensure that consumers receive a clear indication of the price of the devices and of the related services. 

Second, ICA’s investigation highlighted issues in the National Health System’s procurement of hearing aids. Unclear regulations contribute to compromising the effective implementation of adequate and essential levels of care for the approximately seven million Italians who suffer from hearing problems, 2.5 million of which already use hearing aids. Accordingly, ICA suggests increasing market competition by, for example, introducing “hearing vouchers” for consumers while allowing the relevant administrations to rely on tendering procedures. 
 

On April 3, ICA initiated precautionary proceedings against airline group Ryanair for alleged abuse of a dominant position in the markets for scheduled air passenger transport services and the booking and sale of tourist services. 

Initiation of these proceedings follows ICA’s September 2023 decision to launch investigative proceedings against the Ryanair Group concerning alleged abuse of a dominant position for precluding purchases of Ryanair tickets by physical travel agencies and/or online booking platforms (OTAs) through its website or offering them worse conditions than those available on its website. 

In particular, Ryanair required the passenger’s direct involvement in order to unlock the reservation and, therefore, to be able to check-in and travel—by means of identity identification—and conveyed to the passenger disparaging and untrue information in order to dissuade him/her from using travel agencies to purchase Ryanair tickets. At the same time, Ryanair provided—only to a subset of travel agents that did not include OTAs—the possibility of access to Ryanair’s flight inventory through Global Distribution System platforms. This access, however, was reduced in terms of both the number of flights and routes and the absence of certain price options. 

The conduct was allegedly aimed at preventing and/or hindering agency sales of the company’s airline tickets—which typically represent the ‘access point’ for the sale of further services—thus favouring direct sales of airline tickets on Ryanair’s own website. 

The investigation procedure had been initiated following several reports from business associations and operators in the travel sector, such as OTAs and agencies, and from consumer protection groups, some of which had subsequently filed for precautionary measures. During the preliminary proceedings, it emerged that the conduct under investigation had worsened, as to both the obstruction of the purchase of Ryanair flights by agencies and the denigratory campaign. Therefore, finding prima facie a serious and irreparable risk for competition on the markets concerned, ICA opened proceedings to assess the adoption of precautionary measures against Ryanair Group. 
 

On April 17, ICA presented its 2023 activity report. ICA President Roberto Rustichelli first discussed the importance of the single European market, highlighting how the loosening of the State aid rules risks fragmentation in the context of the temporary frameworks. He also highlighted the different funding amounts deployed by EU member states, as well as the need for a common European sovereign fund and the need to curb the instrumental use of foreign direct investment legislation within the EU. 

Second, ICA highlighted the need to stimulate dynamic competition in Italy to reinvigorate the country’s productivity through the diversification of energy sources, the green transition, the reorganization of production chains, digitalization and artificial intelligence, and the removal of barriers to both market entry and exit. 

Finally, the report summarized ICA’s 2023 focuses, including the digital and data sector, which has seen new investigative proceedings against the largest tech companies, but also the sectors affected by inflationary tensions, such as energy and fuels, banking and air transport, and sectors in which abnormal price increases caused by collusive phenomena have been established, such as glass bottles and cast iron. 

The report noted that from January 2023 to March 2024, ICA received 1,271 reports of competition issues; examined 99 merger operations, six of which were sub-threshold; concluded eight proceedings on cartels, six on abuses of dominant position and one on abuse of economic dependence. 

Regarding consumer protection, from January 2023 to March 2024, ICA examined 34,595 notifications; and concluded 102 proceedings, 40 with a finding of infringement and 48 with acceptance of commitments. 
 

China Proposes to Simplify Notification Form for the Fast-Track Merger Review 

On April 8, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released a proposal to simplify the notification form applicable to the fast-track antitrust review for simple merger cases, including for “foreign” transactions (April Proposal). The public comment period on the April Proposal closed April 22. 

China’s merger review regime allows parties to the following “simple” merger transactions (including creation of new joint ventures) to elect for a fast-track review procedure: (a) a “foreign” merger transaction whereby a joint venture is created outside of China or a target business outside of China is acquired and in each case such joint venture or target business carries on economic activities in China, (b) a merger transaction between “small” parties whereby the merging parties, if competing in the same market, have a combined market share of less than 15%, or if operating in vertically adjacent markets, each has a market share of less than 25%, or if neither competing in the same market nor operating in a vertical market, each have a market share of less than 25%, and (c) an incremental consolidation of control in an existing joint venture whereby the existing joint venture was already controlled by two or more parties, and the transaction results in a reduced number of controlling parties enabling the joint venture to be controlled by one or more parties (except that in the case where the joint venture is controlled by one party as a result of the transaction, the controlling shareholder and the joint venture are competitors in the same market with a combined market share exceeding 15%). 

Under the fast-track procedure, the parties to the transaction can submit a notification form to SAMR together with a publication form and supporting documents, and after SAMR confirms the completeness of the submitted forms and documents and accepts the simple case, the publication form will be made available on SAMR’s website for a 10-day period and any person can object in writing to the applicability of the fact-track procedure during that period. SAMR will continue to review the case if there is no public objection and in a vast majority of those cases, the review will be completed within 30 days following the case acceptance. Despite the swiftness in review, the parties following the fast-track procure are nevertheless required to report comprehensively about the transaction and merging parties in the notification form, including elaborating on the competition effect in the relevant market(s), reporting data on market shares of each merging party and their competitors, etc. The April Proposal, following the recent pro-deal agenda of SAMR, simplifies the information and document requests required in the notification form, thus reducing the administrative burden on the merging parties. Key simplifications included in the April Proposal are as follows: 

In spite of the above simplifications, the April Proposal is also requiring the merging parties to represent in the notification form that none of the information submitted to SAMR for review is untrue or misleading. The April Proposal deleted the “knowledge” qualifier previously available in the representation section, signaling a message from SAMR that it may vigorously enforce against any untrue/misleading reporting whilst it is trimming down what is required to be reported in a fast-track merger review.