19
Fri, Apr
44 New Articles

The public procurement tool is intended to prevent foreign subsidies (as defined in Art. 3 FSR) from distorting competition in the internal market. This happens when companies are able to submit unduly advantageous bids that drive competitors unsupported by state funds out of the market, for example because they are subject to the strict prohibition of intra-EU State aid under Art. 107(1) TFEU. The need to counteract market-distorting subsidies from third countries is "particularly pronounced" in public procurement, since public contracts are financed with taxpayers' money. 

The content of communications recorded by criminal law enforcement authorities (LEAs) and traffic and location data; Not only voice communications, but also electronic messages made not only from a mobile phone, but also from landlines and other devices; Records of surveillance of persons and property by the LEAs. This and other information have so far reached the Czech national competition authority (Czech NCA) without being able to use it legally as evidence in the proceedings.

The Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 on Foreign Subsidies Distorting the Internal Market (FSR) formally entered into force on 12 January 2023, but the regime did not apply until 12 July 2023. On the same day, the respective Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1441 was published in the Official Journal.

As we previously announced, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling in the CK Telecoms case last week, annulling the CK Telecoms judgment and referring the case back to the General Court (“Court”). This appeal was in response to the Court’s decision on May 28, 2020, invalidating the European Commission’s (“EC“) ban on the acquisition of Telefonica Europe Plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Ltd. In this article, we delve deeper into the background of this important case and the reasoning behind the CJEU ruling.

With its decision dated 23.03.2023 and numbered 2019/40991, published in the Official Gazette dated 20.06.2023 and numbered 32227, the Constitutional Court [the “Court”] ruled that the on-site investigation carried out at the workplace within the scope of the investigations conducted by the Competition Board without a judge's decision violated the inviolability of domicile guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution.

More Articles ...