We present the fifty-fourth instalment of our information service, which brings you interesting facts from the world of competition law. This time, we have selected events from June 2025.
In this edition of our competition news overview, we focus on anti-competitive horizontal agreements. Read about the competition law perspective on the assessment of joint lobbying by competitors and the growing campaign against no-poach agreements.
No-poach agreements
In June, European competition authorities continued to crack down on anti-competitive practices in labour markets, such as no-poach agreements. Competition authorities are particularly interested in these agreements because they restrict competition for skilled workers and career mobility among employees, thereby leading to lower wages.
The European Commission (EC) fined Delivery Hero and Glovo a total of EUR 329 million for operating a cartel in the online food delivery sector between 2018 and 2022. The companies had agreed not to poach each other's employees, to exchange sensitive business information and to divide up markets. Delivery Hero's minority stake and representation on Glovo's board of directors were to facilitate this. This is the first time the EC has punished anti-competitive practices resulting from a minority stake and a no-poaching agreement. The agreement originally included a mutual commitment not to hire certain employees but was later extended to a general commitment not to approach each other's employees.
This case highlights the increasing focus on cross-ownership and representation on competitors' boards (an issue that affects companies such as Prosus, which holds a significant stake in Delivery Hero and is seeking to merge with Just Eat Takeaway). Our recommendation is for the monitoring of such structures and the introduction of rules to prevent anti-competitive behaviour in the event of their existence.
The French Competition Authority has imposed fines totalling EUR 29.5 million on Randstad Digital, Alten, Expleo and Bertrandt for entering into two extensive 'gentlemen's agreements' on no-poaching. The competitors agreed not to approach or employ each other's employees in sectors such as engineering, technology consulting, and IT services, where attracting top talent is crucial for competitiveness. The agreements, which lasted several years, were uncovered in part thanks to a leniency application by Randstad Digital, who avoided a fine as a result.
The Portuguese competition authority issued a statement of objections to an association of employment and human resources companies for including a clause in its code of ethics that prohibited employee poaching. From 1987 to March 2025, this prevented member companies from recruiting or employing temporary workers from other members, thereby restricting employee mobility. At the same time, the Portuguese competition authority announced that its priority was to combat the prohibition of employee poaching.
The prosecution of anti-competitive agreements concerning employees continued into July. The Polish competition authority sent a statement of objections to Jeronimo Martins Polska (Biedronka supermarkets), 32 transport companies and eight managers. They are accused of concluding agreements to prevent drivers from switching between transport companies serving Biedronka's distribution centres.
This overview shows that non-poaching agreements are widespread and that many competition authorities are prioritising their enforcement. It seems to us that this issue has not received sufficient attention in our countries. We therefore recommend that our clients conduct a basic audit to identify and eliminate these risks, which have so far been under the radar. We would be happy to provide assistance.
Joint lobbying is not a cartel
In a ruling in June, a Lithuanian court considered a case involving several large pharmacy chains and the Lithuanian Pharmacy Association. The Lithuanian Competition Authority had originally fined them nearly EUR 73 million for alleged anti-competitive conduct. This consisted of the collective lobbying of the Ministry of Health in 2017 for approval of higher mark-ups on the prices of medicines covered by public health insurance. The Competition Authority claimed that the companies had coordinated their cost estimates and submitted a 'prototype pharmacy' model together in order to justify their excessive margins. According to the Authority, this constituted price fixing. However, the court overturned these fines, ruling that coordinated lobbying, even between competitors, does not constitute an illegal cartel in itself. The court clarified that the joint promotion of interests with the aim of influencing public policy, without coercion or the exclusion of competitors from the market, constitutes legitimate participation in the legislative process and is not inherently anti-competitive.
Electricity market sharing
The Belgian Competition Authority has fined Nord Pool and EPEX SPOT for participating in a market-sharing agreement in the electricity trading sector. Between March 2009 and December 2015, Nord Pool and APX/Belpex (which was later acquired by EPEX SPOT) agreed not to enter each other's geographical markets for intraday electricity trading. The anti-competitive effects of this agreement were further strengthened when APX/Belpex was granted exclusive rights to use the Elbas trading system, developed by Nord Pool, for cross-border electricity trading between Belgium and the Netherlands. This prevented market integration at a critical time for the interconnection of European electricity markets. Nord Pool was fined EUR 79,810. This was due to obsolete rules capping fines at 10% of turnover on the Belgian market. EPEX SPOT received full immunity under the leniency programme for revealing the cartel to the authorities.
Anti-competitive regulations of professional chambers
The Czech Competition Authority concluded its investigation into the Czech Dental Chamber’s regulations, which were suspected of containing provisions that could restrict competition, without initiating proceedings. The most problematic provision was the requirement for professional representatives to demonstrate disciplinary integrity, which went beyond legal requirements and could have made market entry more difficult. Other problematic issues included restrictions on advertising, a ban on below-cost pricing, and limitations on free consultations, patient recruitment, and the mandatory presence of a professional representative. Such measures could significantly restrict dentists' ability to compete and innovate when it comes to attracting and serving patients. During the investigation, the Chamber amended the regulations itself, addressing the Competition Authority's concerns, and the Authority was thus able to close the investigation through competition advocacy.
