<h3>Hintergrund</h3>
Das kartellrechtliche Missbrauchsverbot gilt seit dem 1. Januar 2022 auch für relativ marktmächtige Unternehmen: Nicht nur eine marktbeherrschende, sondern auch eine relativ marktmächtige Stellung darf nicht missbraucht werden. Ein Unternehmen ist relativ marktmächtig, wenn ein anderes Unternehmen keine ausreichenden und zumutbaren Ausweichmöglichkeiten hat und so von jenem Unternehmen abhängig ist. Relativ marktmächtige Unternehmen müssen etwa abhängige Unternehmen in Bezug auf Preise, Rabatte und sonstige Geschäftsbedingungen grundsätzlich gleich behandeln. Zudem darf die Möglichkeit für abhängige Unternehmen nicht eingeschränkt werden, Waren oder Leistungen im Ausland zu den dortigen Preisen und Bedingungen zu beziehen. Die Einführung der relativen Marktmacht dient der Bekämpfung der Hochpreisinsel Schweiz und geht auf die Fair-Preis-Initiative zurück (vgl. dazu das <a href="https://homburger.ch/de/insights/fair-preis-initiative-vom-parlament-umgesetzt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Homburger Bulletin vom 17. März 2021</a>).
Nachdem die WEKO und in einem Zivilfall das Kantonsgericht Basel-Landschaft in früheren Entscheiden das Vorliegen bzw. den Missbrauch relativer Marktmacht verneinten, stellte die WEKO nun erstmals den Missbrauch einer relativ marktmächtigen Stellung fest und ordnete Massnahmen an.
<h3>Missbrauch relativer Marktmacht bei französischsprachigen Büchern</h3>
Vertrieb von französischsprachigen Büchern in Frankreich und der Schweiz
Die Vermarktung französischsprachiger Bücher erfolgt durch Verlagshäuser. Buchhändler auf Stufe Detailhandel beziehen die Bücher grundsätzlich direkt bei den Verlagshäusern. Für kleinere Buchhändler und zur Deckung von Sortimentslücken existieren in Frankreich wenige regionale Grossisten.
In Frankreich sind Verlage wie Madrigall gesetzlich dazu verpflichtet, feste Endkundenpreise festzulegen (Buchpreisbindung), auf deren Basis sie den Buchhändlern Rabatte gewähren.
Schweizer Buchhändler unterliegen seit 2007 keiner solchen Buchpreisbindung mehr und legen ihre Endkundenpreise selbst fest. Für ihre Einkaufspreise in der Schweiz sind jedoch die in Frankreich festgelegten Endkundenpreise massgebend, die um einen Zuschlag (z.B. Zollgebühren und Wechselkurs) angepasst und in empfohlene Schweizer Endkundenpreise umgerechnet werden. Von diesen Preisen erhalten Schweizer Buchhändler von den Verlagshäusern individuelle Rabatte, die den endgültigen Einkaufspreis bestimmen.
Schweizer Buchhändler haben grundsätzlich die Möglichkeit, Bücher direkt in Frankreich zu beziehen und eigenständig in die Schweiz zu importieren, wie es die Schweizer Buchhändlerin Payot beabsichtigt.
Marktmacht von Madrigall
Die WEKO prüft anhand der folgenden Kriterien, ob ein Unternehmen relativ marktmächtig ist:
<ol>
<li>Abhängigkeit: Hat das betroffene Unternehmen ausreichende und zumutbare Ausweichmöglichkeiten? Diese Frage prüft die WEKO in drei Schritten:
<ol>
<li>Ermittlung der Ausweichmöglichkeiten</li>
<li>Feststellung der allfälligen Folgen des Ausweichens</li>
<li>Beurteilung der Zumutbarkeit der Folgen</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Mangelnde Gegenmacht des abhängigen Unternehmens: Besteht zwischen den Unternehmen in Bezug auf das fragliche Geschäft eine ungleiche Machtverteilung?</li>
<li>Grobes Selbstverschulden: Ist die Abhängigkeit auf eigene Fehler des abhängigen Unternehmens zurückzuführen?</li>
</ol>
Madrigall ist eine der grössten Verlagsgruppen Frankreichs und umfasst rund 15 Verlagshäuser. Die WEKO kommt zum Schluss, dass Payot als Buchhändlerin von Madrigall abhängig ist, da für Payot keine ausreichenden und zumutbaren Ausweichmöglichkeiten bestehen. Weder Grossisten in Frankreich und der Schweiz noch der Graumarkt können Payot mit der benötigten Menge an Büchern unter akzeptablen Bedingungen versorgen. Ein vollständiger Verzicht auf Madrigall-Bücher würde zudem erhebliche Umsatzeinbussen und eine deutlich geringere Attraktivität von Payot als generalistische Buchhändlerin zur Folge haben, da Madrigall über einen sehr renommierten Katalog verfügt.
In Bezug auf die Frage der Gegenmacht geht die WEKO davon aus, dass ein klares Ungleichgewicht der Nachteile besteht, die den beiden Unternehmen bei einer Auflösung der Lieferbeziehung entstehen würden. Während Madrigall zahlreiche Vertriebsmöglichkeiten in der Westschweiz hat, ist Payot vollständig auf Madrigall angewiesen. Die Frage nach dem groben Selbstverschulden erübrigte sich, da generalistische Buchhändlerinnen wie Payot faktisch dazu gezwungen sind, die Bücher von Madrigall anzubieten. Zudem ist der Bezug dieser Bücher grundsätzlich nur über das (exklusive) Vertriebssystem von Madrigall möglich. Das Verlagshaus Madrigall ist daher gegenüber der Westschweizer Buchhändlerin Payot relativ marktmächtig.
Missbrauch
Die Stellung als relativ marktmächtiges Unternehmen ist nicht verboten. Kartellrechtswidrig ist erst der Missbrauch der relativen Marktmacht.
Gemäss WEKO besteht der Missbrauch der relativen Marktmacht vorliegend darin, dass Madrigall von Payot deutlich höhere Einkaufspreise verlangt als von französischen Buchhändlerinnen. Madrigall versuchte, die höheren Einkaufspreise für Payot mit Mehrkosten für die Direktbelieferung in die Schweiz zu rechtfertigen. Nach Ansicht der WEKO kann Madrigall jedoch nur für einen geringen Teil dieser Mehrkosten nachweisen, dass diese allein deshalb entstehen, weil Payot in der Schweiz und nicht in Frankreich tätig ist. Es handelt sich dabei um höhere Arbeitskosten in der Schweiz sowie Schäden, die durch das Entfernen der Etiketten vor der Rückgabe der Bücher entstehen. Die anderen geltend gemachten Kosten (z.B. Umstellungskosten) rechtfertigen gemäss WEKO keine dauerhafte Erhöhung der Einkaufspreise. Es liegt daher ein Missbrauch der relativ marktmächtigen Stellung von Madrigall vor.
Massnahmen der WEKO
Die WEKO verpflichtet Madrigall, Payot bei einer Direktbelieferung aus Frankreich grundsätzlich die gleichen Konditionen anzubieten, die auch französischen Buchhändlerinnen gewährt werden. Madrigall hat jedoch die Möglichkeit, die Einkaufspreise gestützt auf nachgewiesene Mehrkosten zu erhöhen oder den Rabatt entsprechend anzupassen.
Sollte Madrigall gegen die verfügten Massnahmen verstossen, kann die WEKO eine neue Untersuchung eröffnen und dabei allenfalls Sanktionen aussprechen. Der eigentliche Missbrauch der relativen Markmacht hat im Gegensatz zum Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung jedoch keine direkte Sanktion zur Folge.
<h3>Bisherige Entscheide betreffend relative Marktmacht</h3>
Einstellungsverfügung der WEKO vom 24. Juni 2024 i.S. Fresenius Kabi 
Am 24. Juni 2024 stellte die WEKO die Untersuchung betreffend das international tätige Pharmaunternehmen Fresenius Kabi ein. Gegenstand war der Vorwurf des Missbrauchs der relativen Marktmacht, indem Fresenius Kabi gegenüber der Galexis AG den Bezug von Produkten (Trink- und Sondennahrung) zu günstigeren Konditionen aus dem Ausland behindert oder verweigert hatte.
Die WEKO verneinte das Vorliegen einer relativ marktmächtigen Stellung aufgrund fehlender Abhängigkeit. Demnach hatte die Galexis AG ausreichende und zumutbare Ausweichmöglichkeiten. Selbst wenn Fresenius Kabi jedoch relativ marktmächtig gewesen wäre, hätte gemäss WEKO kein Missbrauch dieser Stellung vorgelegen, da die ausländischen Konditionen höchstens geringfügig besser waren und die Galexis AG somit nicht ausgebeutet worden wäre.
Entscheid des Kantonsgerichts Basel-Landschaft vom 13. Dezember 2023
Am 13. Dezember 2023 urteilte das Kantonsgericht Basel-Landschaft über die von der A. GmbH beantragten vorsorglichen Massnahmen gegen die B. GmbH mit Sitz in Deutschland wegen Missbrauchs relativer Marktmacht. Die A. GmbH war seit 27 Jahren als einzige Distributorin der B. GmbH-Produkte in der Schweiz tätig und bezog im Jahr 2022 im Verhältnis zu ihrem Gesamtumsatz einen Warenanteil von rund 90% von der B. GmbH. Die A. GmbH behauptete, dass die B. GmbH ihre relative Marktmacht missbraucht habe, indem sie die langjährigen Partnerkonditionen mit einer Frist von nur sechs Monaten kündigte. Dies habe die Existenz der A. GmbH bedroht, da sie nicht in der Lage gewesen sei, sich innerhalb dieser Frist neu zu organisieren.
Das Kantonsgericht kam zum Schluss, dass die A. GmbH nicht hinreichend glaubhaft machen konnte, dass ihr durch die Kündigung der Partnerkonditionen ein nicht leicht wiedergutzumachender Nachteil drohe. Die behaupteten Preiserhöhungen und das Insolvenzrisiko wurden nicht ausreichend belegt. Auch das Vorliegen eines Abhängigkeitsverhältnisses zwischen den beiden Parteien wurde von der A. GmbH nicht hinreichend glaubhaft gemacht. Die alleinige Behauptung des Vorliegens einer sortimentsbezogenen oder unternehmensbedingten Abhängigkeit genügte nicht. Doch selbst wenn eine Abhängigkeit bestanden hätte, wäre diese durch unternehmerische Fehlentscheidungen der A. GmbH selbst verschuldet gewesen. Die A. GmbH hätte rechtzeitig Massnahmen zur Diversifizierung ihrer Lieferanten und zur vertraglichen Absicherung treffen müssen.
<h3>Konsequenzen für Unternehmen</h3>
Der Entscheid der WEKO i.S. französischsprachige Bücher hat insbesondere Konsequenzen für international tätige Unternehmen. Diese sollten die Abhängigkeit ihrer jeweiligen Schweizer Vertragspartner prüfen, wobei diese Prüfung in jedem Einzelfall vorgenommen werden muss. Im Unterschied zur Beurteilung der Marktbeherrschung bestimmt sich die relative Marktmacht nämlich nicht anhand der Eigenschaften des betroffenen Unternehmens, sondern der Beziehungen zu den einzelnen Vertragspartnern.
Liegt relative Marktmacht vor, so muss das entsprechende Unternehmen geeignete Schritte vorsehen, um Missbräuche zu verhindern. Beispielsweise muss sichergestellt werden, dass Lieferanfragen aus der Schweiz nicht abgelehnt werden. Preiserhöhungen mit Bezug auf die Schweiz sind zwar nicht grundsätzlich ausgeschlossen, müssen aber mit Blick auf den WEKO-Entscheid i.S. französischsprachige Bücher mit spezifischen Mehrkosten überzeugend nachgewiesen werden.
Im Allgemeinen hat ein relativ marktmächtiges Unternehmen sein Verhalten am Missbrauchsregime von Art. 7 des Kartellgesetzes zu orientieren. Insbesondere müssen abhängige Unternehmen in Bezug auf Preise, Rabatte und sonstige Geschäftsbedingungen grundsätzlich gleich behandelt werden. Zudem müssen relativ marktmächtige Unternehmen möglicherweise Vertragskündigungen oder die Vereinbarung von Exklusivitäten aus sachlichen Gründen rechtfertigen können.

Homburger Bulletin Fair Preis Initiative

Erste Feststellung eines Missbrauchs relativer Marktmacht

<h3>Background</h3>
In the event of suspected violations of the law or other irregularities, companies conduct internal investigations to determine and analyze the relevant facts. These internal investigations are often led by outside counsel. In parallel, criminal and regulatory authorities may conduct their own investigations into the same matters. To further their investigations, they may request documents and information prepared and collected in the course of the internal investigation, including investigation reports and supporting documents. In particular, financial institutions supervised by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA are subject to extensive disclosure and cooperation obligations. Consequently, findings of internal investigations are often voluntarily disclosed to FINMA. In turn, the prosecutors may try to obtain the findings of the internal investigation directly from the supervised financial institutions or, through administrative assistance, from FINMA.
In this context, the questions arise as to whether the findings of an internal investigation conducted by outside counsel and the collected supporting documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and whether privileged documents and information submitted to FINMA may be obtained by the prosecutors. In two recent cases, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled on those issues (see <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a> and <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>).
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a>, the prosecutor requested FINMA to provide through mutual legal assistance the enforcement order of the proceedings against a Swiss bank as well as the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor could obtain these documents from FINMA, even though the bank argued that the enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent were based on a privileged investigation report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel.
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the criminal justice authorities requested the bank in the same matter to provide the report of the internal investigation conducted by the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor could not obtain the report from the bank due to attorney-client privilege, although the bank had voluntarily submitted a copy of the report to FINMA.
The present Bulletin summarizes the key considerations of the Federal Supreme Court and their practical implications.
<h3>Key Considerations of the Federal Supreme Court on Attorney-Client Privilege</h3>
Authorities may forward information voluntarily disclosed to them, even if the information initially was subject to attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a>, the bank took the position that the enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA were protected by attorney-client privilege because these documents were based on the privileged internal investigation report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the bank&#8217;s arguments. According to the court, attorney-client communications are generally protected by attorney-client privilege. However, disclosures to third parties (e.g., an insurance company or government agency) are not considered attorney-client communications, even if the disclosure contains privileged information. Once privileged information is knowingly and voluntarily disclosed to third parties, the information leaves the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, the attorney-client privilege does not prevent third parties from fulfilling their obligation to testify or produce documents. According to the court, this also applies to voluntary disclosures to FINMA, even if the supervised financial institution expressly reserves its rights to claim attorney-client privilege protection.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that privileged information in the possession of FINMA could be obtained by the prosecutor through mutual legal assistance. According to the court, this applies all the more to the FINMA enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA.
The question of whether the prosecutor could obtain the privileged report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel from FINMA was not part of the proceedings and was therefore not explicitly decided by the Federal Supreme Court. However, the court&#8217;s considerations make it sufficiently clear that this would likely be the case if the report was submitted to FINMA voluntarily. Thereby, the court confirmed that supervised financial institutions are not legally required to disclose to FINMA information protected by attorney-client privilege.
Investigation of the facts conducted by external counsel is protected by attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that reports of internal investigations led by Swiss outside counsel are protected by attorney-client privilege, in particular when the internal investigation is conducted in connection with the advice and representation in existing and impending legal proceedings. In this context, the court concluded that the investigation and analysis of the relevant facts are part of the core area of outside counsels&#8216; work and are therefore privileged.
As a result, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel was protected by attorney-client privilege. The exception established by the Federal Supreme Court in earlier decisions that reports by law firms are not subject to attorney-client privilege if they were prepared in connection with documentary obligations pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, did not apply in the present case.
Selection and analysis of pre-existing documents is protected by attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the Federal Supreme Court also confirmed that while internal bank documents as such are not protected by attorney-client privilege, the selection and evaluation of those documents by Swiss outside counsel constitute legal advice and are therefore protected work product. Consequently, the copies of pre-existing documents such as bank internal documents attached to an investigation report from Swiss outside counsel are privileged.
As a result, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that not only the report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel but also all documents enclosed to the report were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Voluntary disclosure to FINMA does not lead to general loss of attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the voluntary disclosure of privileged information to selected third parties does not constitute a general waiver of attorney-client privilege. Consequently, privileged documents and information voluntarily submitted to FINMA by a supervised financial institution do not lose their confidential character and therefore remain protected by attorney-client privilege. Hence, prosecutors may obtain privileged information from FINMA through mutual legal assistance – as this was decided in case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a> – but may not seize the same privileged information directly from the supervised financial institution.
<h3>Conclusion and Practical Implications</h3>
The Federal Supreme Court has reinforced the protection of attorney-client privilege in the context of internal investigations. However, the court&#8217;s position that prosecutors may obtain privileged information from FINMA through mutual legal assistance leads to a disproportionate restriction of the application of attorney-client privilege in connection with mutual legal assistance proceedings between Swiss authorities. The decision is part of a series of Federal Supreme Court decisions that undermine the protection of attorney-client privilege in favor of an efficient and unimpeded cooperation between Swiss criminal and regulatory authorities.
This new case law applies not only to the disclosure of documents to FINMA, as in the case before the Federal Supreme Court, but also to disclosures of privileged information to any other authority (e.g., the Competition Commission or tax authorities) or third party. Financial institutions, as well as other companies, must therefore consider this case law whenever they intend to disclose documents and information voluntarily to authorities and other third parties. Anyone who knowingly and voluntarily discloses privileged documents and information to a third party now risks losing the protection of attorney-client privilege for disclosed documents and information in the possession of the third party.
To preserve the protection of the attorney-client privilege when cooperating with authorities, companies have the following options: (1) consider disclosure of privileged documents and information only if compelled; (2) when possible communicate privileged information orally rather than in writing; or (3) give regulators or other competent authorities access to privileged information on a review-only basis. None of these options is truly satisfactory, and they may be difficult to implement in practice. As a result, this new case law may have the effect of significantly limiting or at least complicating cooperation between companies and authorities as companies will now have to carefully decide on a case-by-case basis whether to disclose privileged information to regulators or other competent authorities.

Web_Preview_AI_Anwaltsgeheimnis_270824

Swiss Court Limits and Reinforces Attorney-Client Privilege

<h3>I. The Dispute</h3>
The dispute arises from a complaint filed by two athletes in 2014. The athletes complained about certain rules of the International Skating Union (ISU) providing for sanctions in case of participation in competitions other than those authorized by the ISU. After conducting a competition law investigation, in December 2017, the European Commission issued an infringement decision finding that the ISU eligibility rules restricted competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. The European Commission also found that the rules providing that disputes with the ISU in relation thereto shall be solved through CAS arbitration aggravated such infringement because of the lack of proper review of EU competition law issues in CAS arbitration proceedings.
The General Court confirmed that the ISU eligibility rules constituted an infringement of EU competition law. However, it overturned the European Commission&#8217;s decision on the rules providing for CAS arbitration. Referring to ECHR case law (such as Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland), the General Court found that the ISU rules providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of the CAS were justified by legitimate interests relating to the specific nature of sports disputes, such as the use of a specialized tribunal capable of resolving disputes quickly and economically, and the need to ensure international uniformity.
While the ISU challenged the infringement finding, the decision of the General Court on the CAS arbitration rules was challenged by the two athletes and an athletes&#8216; association with the support of the European Commission.
<h3>II. The ECJ Decision</h3>
Ruling on the appeal of the athletes, the ECJ sided with the European Commission and overturned the General Court&#8217;s decision regarding the rules providing for CAS arbitration. The ECJ elaborated on what constitutes «effective judicial review» of EU competition law issues.
The ECJ recalled that sports associations have legal autonomy to adopt rules relating, inter alia, to the organization of competitions, their proper functioning and the participation of athletes in those competitions. However, sports associations cannot restrict the exercise of the rights and freedoms conferred on individuals by EU law. According to the case law of the ECJ, such individual rights and freedoms include the rights underlying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Hence, rules of sport associations concerning matters such as the prior authorization of sports events and eligibility rules must be subject to effective judicial review, especially where the arbitration mechanism «must be regarded as imposed» on the athletes.
The requirement of effective judicial review means that in the event that such rules contain provisions conferring mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction on an arbitration body, the court having jurisdiction to review the awards made by that body may confirm that those awards comply with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. In addition, the requirement of judicial review entails that such courts satisfy all the requirements of Article 267 TFEU, so that they are entitled, or, as the case may be, required, to refer a question to the ECJ and obtain a preliminary ruling.
The ECJ found that since the rules at stake concern the organization and marketing of skating events as well as the participation of professional athletes in such events, any dispute relating thereto arises in the context of economic activities as opposed to merely the sport as such. Accordingly, any decisions enforceable within the territory of the EU must comply with EU competition law, irrespective of the place of establishment of the entities that adopted rules providing for arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.
Applying the above principles, the ECJ concluded that the rules at issue were not justified by legitimate interests relating to the specific nature of sports disputes and that they rather aggravate a potential infringement since they fail to ensure the required effective judicial review: CAS awards are reviewed only by the Swiss Federal Tribunal, i.e. a court of a third State that cannot obtain a preliminary ruling from the ECJ, and such review does not include compliance with EU competition law. On this basis, the ECJ held that «[i]n the absence of such judicial review, the use of an arbitration mechanism is such as to undermine the protection of rights that subjects of the law derive from the direct effect of EU law and the effective compliance with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, which must be ensured – and would therefore be ensured in the absence of such a mechanism – by the national rules relating to remedies».
The ECJ noted that the possibility of claiming damages does not compensate for the lack of a remedy against the infringement as such. As to complaints lodged with the European Commission, the ECJ observed that complainants are not entitled to obtain a decision on the existence or non-existence of the alleged infringement.
<h3>III. Potential Implications of the ECJ Decision</h3>
There is no debate that disputes involving competition law issues, including those arising under EU law, are arbitrable under Swiss arbitration law. Moreover, under certain conditions set out in Article 19 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, it is possible for a court or an arbitral tribunal sitting in Switzerland to take into account EU competition law as a mandatory provision of EU law regardless of the law applicable to the merits of the case. Indeed, numerous CAS awards consider and apply EU competition law, either directly or on the basis of Article 19 of the Swiss Private International Law Act.
All this does not matter according to the ECJ. By finding that the required effective judicial review of EU competition law issues may only be ensured within the EU judicial system, the ECJ makes it practically impossible for the sport associations to ensure homogenous conditions for all athletes. It remains to be seen whether athletes will share the ECJ&#8217;s view that the courts of the EU Members States are better placed to hear their claims despite the lack of specialization, the duration of state court proceedings and the costs involved. Voluntary submission by the athletes to CAS arbitration is not impacted by the ECJ ruling which does not question the validity of the sport associations&#8216; offer to arbitrate. It is submitted that well-advised athletes may well continue to turn to CAS arbitration to enforce their rights, including those arising under EU competition law.
It is difficult to see how the current framework of CAS arbitration may be reconciled with the ruling of the ECJ, as such ruling requires that CAS awards involving the exercise of a sport as an economic activity in the EU be reviewed by the courts of a Member State. Absent the possibility of having such disputes heard by a CAS arbitral tribunal sitting in a Member State, rules included in the statutes or regulations of sport associations providing for CAS arbitration may not be enforceable in the EU countries in case of disputes with athletes involving EU competition law. The new ECJ ruling may effectively open up the possibility of submitting the «same» dispute to a myriad of different fora, which inevitably translates into greater legal uncertainty and a greater risk of contradictory and/or discriminatory rulings.

Final_Preview_1000-1000_Bulletin-Illustration_01-24

Does CAS Arbitration Clash with EU Competition Law?

Gesellschaftsrecht / M&A

Finanzierungen und Anlageprodukte

IP / IT

Wettbewerb

Steuern

Arbeitsrecht und Vergütung für Führungskräfte

Datenschutz

Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit

HomeToGo_web_640x140

Homburger News

On February 12, 2025, HomeToGo SE (Frankfurt Stock Exchange: HTG) announced the signing of a binding agreement to acquire Interhome, Europe&#8217;s second largest vacation rental management company, from Migros, Switzerland’s largest retail company. HomeToGo agreed to a purchase price of CHF 150 m, plus deferred payments of up to CHF 85 m which may become due in tranches until 2029, making this the most significant transaction in HomeToGo Group&#8217;s history and positioning HomeToGo to become Europe&#8217;s leading vacation rental platform.
With this transaction, HomeToGo Group&#8217;s total pro-forma Adjusted EBITDA for FY/24e would triple to more than EUR 30 m.
The transaction is expected to be financed through a combination of new equity, senior debt and available net cash and is expected to close in H1/25, subject to customary regulatory approvals for both the acquisition of Interhome by HomeToGo and the simultaneous acquisition &#8211; in the same transaction &#8211; of the other entities in Hotelplan Group by DERTOUR Group, a renowned international tourism group.
Homburger advises HomeToGo on the Swiss law and tax aspects of the transaction. The Homburger team was led by Frank Gerhard (Corporate / M&amp;A) and included Olivier Bühlmann, Magdalena Stock, Daniel Bötticher, Miriam Oelgarth and Harun Cetin (all Corporate / M&amp;A), Stefan Bindschedler and Michelle Wolf (both Financing and Investment Products), Luca Dal Molin and Joel Fink (both IP / IT), Richard Stäuber and Christoph Grüninger (both Competition), Reto Heuberger, Stefan Oesterhelt and Philippe Weber (all Tax), Vanessa Huber and Jeremy Reichlin (both Employment and Executive Compensation), Gabriel Kasper (Data Protection) as well as Stefanie Pfisterer (Arbitration). Homburger acted alongside a German-based Linklaters team on this transaction.

Homburger advises HomeToGo on its acquisition of Interhome

Technologie und Digitalisierung

Regulierung

Temenos

Homburger and Temenos

On February 6, 2025, Temenos announced that it has reached an agreement with Montagu Private Equity for the sale of Multifonds, its fund administration software business, for a total Enterprise Value of around USD 400 m including an earn-out. Multifonds is a leading global provider of fund administration software, serving all asset classes across multiple jurisdictions and helping fund administrators, asset managers, insurance companies and pension funds achieve increased operational efficiency, whilst reducing risk.
The Homburger team is led by Dieter Gericke and Daniel Häusermann (both Corporate / M&amp;A) and included Nicola Togni, Romain Hondius, Thomas Romelli, Luca Ellenberger and Miriam Oelgarth (all Corporate / M&amp;A), Gregor Bühler, Philippe Baumann and Kristina Martinovic (all IP / IT, Technology and Digital Economy), Stefan Oesterhelt, Laetitia Fracheboud and Juliette Buob (all Tax) as well as Richard Stäuber and Christoph Grüninger (both Competition, Regulatory).

Homburger advises Temenos on the sale of Multifonds to Montagu Private Equity

Kapitalmarkt

Immobilien

Homburger and Liberty Global, Sunrise

On October 16, 2024, Liberty Global Ltd. (NASDAQ: LBTYA, LBTYB and LBTYK) and Sunrise Communications AG (Sunrise) announced the key dates of the spin-off of Sunrise from Liberty Global. After the spin-off, Sunrise, which is Switzerland&#8217;s largest private telecommunications provider, will be an independent, separate publicly traded Swiss company.
As part of the spin-off, Liberty Global shareholders will receive Sunrise Class A shares and Sunrise Class B shares in the form of Sunrise Class A ADSs and Sunrise Class B ADSs. The Sunrise Class A shares will be listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange (SIX) and the Sunrise Class A ADSs will be listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market (NASDAQ). The spin-off is subject to approval by Liberty Global&#8217;s shareholders. The first day of trading on the NASDAQ and the SIX is scheduled for November 13 and 15, 2024, respectively.
Homburger AG acts as Swiss counsel to Liberty Global and Sunrise. The Homburger team is led by Daniel Daeniker and Daniel (Danny) Häusermann and includes, among others, Carlo Sulser, Patrick Schmidt, Michael Lüchinger, Marilena Balthasar, Felix Beltle and Paula Delissen (all Corporate / M&amp;A, Capital Markets), Stefan Oesterhelt, Laetitia Fracheboud, Juliette Buob and Tanja Niederer (all Tax), Andreas Müller, Jeremy Reichlin and Daniel Bötticher (all Employment and Executive Compensation), Richard Stäuber and Christoph Grüninger (all Competition, Regulatory), Gabriel Kasper (IP / IT), Sarah Fasel (Financing and Investment Products) and Daniel Junginger (Real Estate).

Homburger advises Liberty Global and Sunrise on the Spin-off and Listing of Sunrise on the SIX and NASDAQ

Wettbewerb

Hauptkontakte

Erste Feststellung eines Missbrauchs relativer Marktmacht

Swiss Court Limits and Reinforces Attorney-Client Privilege

Does CAS Arbitration Clash with EU Competition Law?

Homburger advises HomeToGo on its acquisition of Interhome

Homburger advises Temenos on the sale of Multifonds to Montagu Private Equity

Homburger advises Liberty Global and Sunrise on the Spin-off and Listing of Sunrise on the SIX and NASDAQ

Antitrust Litigation 2024: Introduction

Merger Control 2024

Merger Control 2024: Switzerland