7. Competition Law I: Collusion Flashcards
Distribution of Package Tours during the 1990 World Cup
Undertakings - includes organisations that lack a profit motive
Hofner & Else v Macroton
Undertakings interpreted broadly - entities engaged in economic activity, regardless of legal status and way in which it is financed
Tapea v Commission
‘Agreements between undertakings’ - includes oral agreements
Hercules Chemicals v Commission
‘Agreements between undertakings’ - include gentlemen’s agreements
Bayer v Commission
Unilateral behaviour by one undertaking (including subsidiaries) not ‘agreement’
NV IAZ Belgium v Commission
Trade association for water supplies held to have breached Art 101 when entering into agreements with other organisations to establish a system of checks for washing machines and dishwashers which made it more difficult to import washing machines dishwashers and to Belgium
IVI v Commission (‘Dyestuffs’)
Similarity of rate and timing of price increases held to be a concerted practice
A. Ahlström Oy v Commission (Wood Pulp Cartel)
Parallel pricing held not to breach Art 101(1) - this could be explained as a normal feature of the market
Société Technique Minière v Mascinenbau Ulm
Test as to whether collusion affects trade between MS - must be possible to foresee with sufficient degree of probability on basis of objective factors that it may have influence on patter of trade between MS
‘Rule of reason’ first established
Établissements Costen & Grundig v Commission
Exclusive dealership agreement held to place limitation on freedom of trade between MS and thus breach Art 101
Competition Authority v Beef Industry Development Society
Some undertakings agreed to decommission in return for compensation by those that remained in operation
Whether parties acted with subjective intent to restrict competition held to be a relevant as to whether object is anti-competitive
Pronuptia de Paris v Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgallis
‘Rule of reason’ applied - agreement results in overall improvement in competition, so allowed
Völk v Vervaecke
‘De minimis’
Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance
Horizontal - aggregate market share not exceeding 10%
Vertical - each undertaking must not have a market share value exceeding 15%
Transocean Marine Paint Association
Agreement between medium-sized marine paint producers deemed to enable them to compete with larger produces so entitled to individual exemption under Art 101(3)
