May 17, 2012

Antitrust Inspections in The Energy Exchange Market

On 7 February, the European Commission (EC) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority conducted unannounced inspections in the energy exchange market. Representatives of Nord Pool Spot (Lysaker, Norway) and EPEX Spot (Paris, France and Leipzig, Germany) announced that the companies were subject to inspections. It is not known whether other companies were also raided. The inspections show that the EC’s enforcement policy extends beyond the retail level of the energy sector.

Allegations

The EC has stated that it suspects that the inspected companies, which are active in the electricity trading sector at the wholesale level, have acted in breach of EU antitrust rules on horizontal agreements (Articles 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area).

In its official statement about the inspections, the EC did not refer expressly to Nord Pool Spot and EPEX Spot as such, but instead referred to “companies active in managing power exchanges in several Member States”. It could therefore be implied that additional companies active in this area are being targeted by the EC’s antitrust officials. Nord Pool Spot stated that the inspections related to the “possible anticompetitive effects” of the intended joint venture between it and EPEX Spot, as announced on 28 September 2011. This has not been confirmed by the EC.

Inspections by the EC represent a preliminary step in the investigative process where it seeks to gather evidence in order to build a credible cartel case. In this respect, all incriminating documents except those subject to legal professional privilege (i.e., internal correspondence with in-house counsel) may be collected.

Comment

Three years have passed since the EC specifically targeted anti-competitive practices in the energy sector, in line with the single market imperative to further integrate the EU internal energy market. It is now clear that the EC’s enforcement policy extends beyond the retail level of the energy sector.

The current case remains at a very early stage. The fact that the EC has carried out inspections does not mean that the companies are guilty of illicit behaviour, nor does it prejudge the outcome of the investigation itself. In the event that the EC does not uncover incriminating evidence that the companies are guilty of anti-competitive practices, it may decide to end the investigation with no further action being taken. There is no deadline for the EC to issue a Statement of Objections, or to terminate its investigation.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

David Henry is an associate in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.  His practice focuses on European competition law including merger control, cartels and abuse of dominance, and his clients include companies in the air transport, chemicals, electronics and semi-conductor products, food retailing and digital map industries.  He also advises clients in proceedings before the European courts. 

32 2 282 35 69

About the Author

Partner

Philipp Werner is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.   His practice focuses on European and German competition law including State aid, merger control, cartels and abuse of dominance, and his clients include companies in the automotive, infrastructure, transport and health care sectors.

32 2 282 35 67

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.