Competition Law Flashcards
Viho v Commission
Art 101 Definition of ‘Undertaking’
Subsidiaries set up in different MSs with rules that they could not provide goods to other MSs were not separate undertakings within art 101, but could still fall within art 102
FENIN v Commission
Art 101 Definition of ‘Undertaking’
Public bodies do not fall within Art 101 when they are exercising their public power as they are not engaged in downstream economic activity when exercising these powers
Wouters
Art 101 Definition of ‘Undertaking’
Lawyers are undertakings: Offer services and bear the financial risks attaching to the performance of their activities, therefore carry on an economic activity
Art 101: Use of ORPIs
Rule by Dutch Bar Association prohibiting partnerships between lawyers and accountants did not violate art 101(1) as it was necessary in order to ensure the proper practice of impartiality in the legal profession
Bayer v Commission, Chimiefarma
Art 101 Definition of ‘Agreements’
A concurrence of wills between at least 2 parties which constitutes a faithful expression of the parties intention
The form of the agreement is unimportant
ICI v Commission
Art 101 Definition of ‘Concerted Practices’
Where practical cooperation is knowingly substituted for the risks of competition without actually reaching the stage of an agreement
STM v Machinebau Ulm
Art 101: Effect on Trade Between MSs
‘It is possible to foresee, with a sufficient degree of probability, on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or fact that the agreement may have an influence direct, indirect, actual or potential on the pattern of trade between the MSs’
Consten and Grundig
Art 101: Effect on Trade Between MSs
An agreement might tend to restore the national divisions in trade between MSs
Volk v Vervaeke
Art 101: Effect on Trade Between MSs
De Minimis exception: Agreements of minor importance are not caught by the prohibition
10-15% of the market
T-Mobile
Art 101: ‘Object/Effect of the agreement’
Object OR effect- alternative not cumulative requirements
Agreements by object:
Intention of the parties not an essential factor
Only needs to have the potential to have a negative impact on competition
O2 (Germany) v Commission
Art 101: ‘Object/Effect of the agreement’
Agreements by Effect:
Must demonstrate a causal link between the agreement and a restrictive/distortive effect on competition
Glaxo Spain
Art 101(3) Exemption: Burden of Proof
Initial burden of proof is on the undertaking
However commission may be required to provide an explanation/justification of evidence in order to refute it
Block Exemption Regulation
Regulation 330/2010: Block exemption regulation for vertical agreements
Provides for an umbrella exemption for all vertical agreements containing clauses restrictive of competition:
Horizontal Agreement
Agreement between economic operators that function at the same level of the market
Vertical Agreement
Agreement between undertakings which operate at different levels of the production chain
Meca-Medina
Art 101: Use of ORPIs
Swimmers challenged anti-doping rules of the International Olympic Committee as being restrictive of competition
Court said did constitute a restriction within the meaning of art 101(1) as they were justified by a legitimate objective of ensuring healthy rivalry between athletes
Tetrapak
Art 102 TFEU
Operates independently to Art 101
Exemption under art 101 does not mean an undertaking is immune from the operation of art 102