The main points of the EU system of regulating vertical restraints are as follows: horizontal agreements, by their very nature, are more likely to fall under the prohibitions of Chapter I or Article 101 than vertical agreements. These are essentially agreements between competitors and, as such, care must be taken to ensure that such agreements do not have anti-competitive effects. In some cases, they may be considered a cartel, which can result in criminal penalties. If there is no formal notification procedure, is it possible to seek advice from the antitrust enforcement authority or a declaratory judgment from a court on the assessment of a particular agreement in certain circumstances? Is there a single point regarding the assessment of vertical restraints in your jurisdiction that has not been addressed above? The Regulation applies to all vertical restraints, with the exception of those mentioned above. However, it sets specific conditions for 3 vertical restraints: the current block exemption for vertical agreements expires at the end of May 2022 and is currently under review. EU competition law contains various block exemptions that exclude certain agreements from the prohibition in Article 101. These block exemptions shall also apply to agreements which may fall within the prohibition laid down in Chapter I. This is an area on which the Commission is very focused. Restrictions preventing a buyer from selling contract products from one EU Member State to another may be among the most serious infringements of Article 101. These agreements are under increased scrutiny by the Commission, as they tend to re-establish the divisions between national markets sought by the EU. Nevertheless, in its final report of the May 2017 e-commerce sector inquiry, the Commission found that more than 11% of retailers said they had contractual restrictions on cross-border sales in at least one product category in which they operate in the EU. Provided that they do not contain hardcore restrictions (as defined in the relevant Block Exemption Regulations), several vertical agreements may fall within block exemptions, thus circumventing the prohibition set out in Article 4.
Below is a list of block exemption regulations that may apply, inter alia, to vertical agreements. Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, some of the following rules may or may not apply to vertical agreements: The European Commission has also published guidelines on vertical restraints. These describe the approach for vertical agreements not covered by the Regulation. Is it necessary for there to be a formal written agreement to regulate antitrust law with respect to vertical restraints, or can the relevant rules be implemented through an informal or unwritten agreement? In the 17 years from 1 January 2001 to 1 January 2018, the Commission adopted around 17 decisions on infringements of vertical restraints under Article 101. This only applies to cases where the Commission: what investigative powers does the antitrust enforcement authority have to enforce the prohibition of vertical restraints? Where a party to an agreement holds a dominant position on one of the markets to which an agreement relates, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which governs the conduct of dominant undertakings) may also be relevant for the purposes of assessing cartels and abuses of dominant positions. However, the conduct covered by Article 102 TFEU is dealt with in Getting the Deal Through – Dominance and is therefore not dealt with here. Where a representative takes one or more of the abovementioned risks to a more than insignificant extent, it is apparent from the Vertical Guidelines that the Commission considers that the agreement should not be classified as a genuine commercial agency contract and that Article 101 can therefore be applied as if it were a standard distribution agreement. Agreements which set the maximum amount of the discount or make the granting of rebates or the reimbursement of promotion costs subject to compliance with certain price levels have an effect equivalent to clear restrictions on price fixing.
The setting of maximum resale prices or “recommended” resale prices, from which the dealer may deviate without penalty, may be permitted (provided that these do not relate to fixed or minimum selling prices resulting from pressure or the offer of incentives from the seller). It should be noted, however, that the Commission may view such agreements with suspicion in concentrated markets, as it considers that such practices may facilitate collusion between suppliers. Since the adoption of the Vertical Guidelines in 2010, the Commission has not adopted any decision imposing fines as regards the maintenance of resale prices. However, in the case of the 2012-2013 e-books (see question 13), the Commission appears to have examined whether the ability of publishers to determine the prices of e-books sold via online platforms could have constituted a price maintenance for resale. However, given that the case was closed by the adoption of commitments by the Commission rather than by the adoption of a full decision, it is not clear to what extent the maintenance of prices for resale could have been relevant in the case of the Commission. A vertical agreement is a term used in competition law to refer to agreements between companies at different levels of the supply chain. For example, a consumer electronics manufacturer could enter into a vertical agreement with a retailer under which the retailer would promote its products in exchange for lower prices. Franchising is a form of vertical agreement that falls within the scope of Article 101 of EU competition law. [1] Notwithstanding the prohibitions set out in Chapter I or Article 101, where the benefits of the agreement outweigh the anti-competitive effects, the block exemption under a vertical agreement does not apply to a design, it may nevertheless be admissible. For the purposes of Article 101, a contract shall be considered to be a commercial agency contract if the agent does not bear any insignificant financial or commercial risk in relation to contracts concluded or negotiated on behalf of the contracting entity. The exact degree of risk that an agent may take without Article 101 being considered applicable to his relationship with a contracting entity shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The vertical guidelines indicate that a contract is generally considered to be a commercial agency contract in which ownership of the contract goods is not transferred to the agent and the agent does not perform any of the following actions: Among the obligations accepted by the Commission was the fact that Apple and the publishers would terminate e-book agency contracts that provided for consumer pricing for publishers – as contracting entities – (see questions 19 to 22) and the most favoured customers. Clauses (see questions 24 and 25). In the Peugeot judgment (1986), the Commission found that the restrictive effects of an agreement `may be reinforced by the existence of similar exclusive and selective distribution systems of other car manufacturers`. This followed the approach of the ECJ in Metro v Commission, in which the General Court emphasised the prevalence of selective distribution networks on the relevant market as one of the criteria for determining whether a particular network constitutes a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) (given that the dissemination of the systems `leaves no room for other forms of distribution … or leads to rigidity in the pricing structure that does not relate to other aspects of competition between goods of the same brand and by the existence of effective competition between different brands”). The Commission abolished its system of prior formal notification in the context of the `modernisation reforms` implemented by Regulation No 1/2003 on 1 May 2004. Subject to the possibility of seeking informal advice in new cases (see question 48), notification of a vertical agreement is therefore neither necessary nor generally desirable. In this respect, undertakings are now required to see for themselves whether an agreement restricts competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) and, if so, whether it is eligible for an exemption under Article 101(3). However, the CJEU`s glaxoSmithKline judgment also emphasises that the Commission is required to properly examine the arguments and evidence put forward by a party in the context of the Article 101(3) Assessment of whether the agreement should be exempted from the article 101(3) prohibition, paragraph 1. .
. . .