On the Potential to ApplyDe MinimisExemption for Agreements Containing Hardcore Restraints: European Union Practice

• Authors: Andrius Puksas
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article analyzes the possibility to apply de minimis exemption for agreements containing hardcore restraints. The statements are derived from analyses of scientific literature, relevant legislation, and the practice of courts and authorities responsible for competition maintenance.Current European Union legislation excludes agreements containing hardcore restraints from applying de minimis exemption. The early practice of the European Court of Justice (hereinafter - ECJ) and the newest national courts' (e.g. Spain) decisions do not reflect this position. Furthermore, in 2010 the Netherlands broadened the application of de minimis exemption.The article approaches a wide range of possibilities rather than the dogmatic practice of de minimis exemption. Besides the analysis of relevant jurisprudence, the article also assesses competition law specialists' opinions and possible solutions that proceed from the current situation.

Keywords

EN

Agreements; de minimis exemption; hardcore restraints; impact; competition

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 46-69

Dates

published

2012-01-01

online

2012-07-28

Contributors

author

Andrius Puksas

• Faculty of Law, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania

References

• Annual Report 2007-2009. Comision Nacional de la Competencia //
• "Beware of legal privilege?! Dutch de minimis exemption for hardcore infringements in line with EU law." Competition Newsletter, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (February 2011) //
• Drexl, Josef, Laurence Idot, and Joel Maneger. Economic Theory and Competition Law. Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009.
• Garrigues Antitrust Newsletter No. 18 (December 2009) //
• Jones, Alison, and Brenda Sufrin. EU Competition Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Jones, Alison. "The Journey Toward an Effects-based Approach under Article 101 TFEU-The Case of Hardcore Restraints." The Antitrust bulletin Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter 2010): 783-818.
• Kalbfleisch, Pieter. "Crisis geen vrijbrief voor verboden afspraken" [Crisis is no Excuse for Illegal Agreements]. The 2008 Annual bulletin (January 28, 2009) //
• Kjølbye, Lars. "Escaping Effects Analysis: The Commission's New Approach to Restrictions by Object." CPI Antitrust Journal: Covington & Burling LLP (2011 (1)).
• Linsmeier, Petra, and Moritz Lichtenegger. "The German Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf holds that hardcore restrictions are not per se appreciable if the relevant market share is below 1% (Tschechisches Bier)." e-Competitions No. 21232 (June 23, 2004) // www.concurrences.com (accessed June 10, 2011).
• Ritter, Lennart, and David W. Braun. European Competition Law: A Practitioner's Guide. Third Edition. Kluwer Law International, 2004.
• Švirinas, Daivis. "The Peculiarities of the Assessment of the Use of Recommended Resale Prices under Article 81 of the European Community Treaty." Social Sciences Studies No. 1(5) (2010): 219-236.
• Van Bael & Bellis. Competition Law on the European Community. Kluwer Law International, 2005.
• Verras, Nikolaos. "Developments in Vertical Agreements." The Antitrust bulletin Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter 2010): 843-874.
• Verras, Nikolaos. "Resale Price Maintenance in E.U. Competition Law: Thoughts in Relation to the Vertical Restraints Review Procedure." The Columbia Journal of European Law Online 37 (2009) // http://www.cjel.net/online/16_1-verras/ (accessed June 10, 2011).
• Whish, Richard. Competition Law. Sixth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
• Communication (January 14, 2011) on Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agreements. European Commission. Official Gazette, 2011, no. C 11/01.
• Competition Authority v. Beef Industry Development Society Ltd and Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd. European Court of Justice, 2008, no. C-209/07.
• Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Gazette, 2008, no. C 115/47.
• European Night Services v. Commission. The Court of First Instance, 1998, Case T-374/94.
• General Motors BV v. Commission of the European Communities. European Court of Justice, 2006, no. C-551/03.
• Guidelines (May 19, 2010) on Vertical Restraints. European Commission. Official Gazette, 2010, no. C 130/01.
• Haller GMBh; Mercedes Pedraz Calvo. Audiencia Nacional [National Court of the Kingdom of Spain], 2009, no. 418/2008.
• ICI v. Dyestuffs (Commission). European Court of Justice, 1972, no. 48/69.
• Law on Competition of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 1997 [with amendments which entered into force after July 1, 2009] //
• Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 1999, no. 30-856.
• MDC Ingeniería/Productos Haller. Comision Nacional de la Competencia [National Competition Commission of the Kingdom of Spain], 2008, no. 634/07.
• Notice (December 22, 2001) on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis). European Commission. Official Gazette, 2001, no. 368/07.
• Notice (December 9, 1997) on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law. European Commission. Official Gazette, 1997, no. 372/03.
• Regulation no. 1/2003 (December 16, 2002) on implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. European Council. Official Gazette, 2003, no. L 1.
• Regulation no. 772/2004 (April 27, 2004) on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements. European Commission. Official Gazette, 2004, no. L 123.
• Resolution no. 17 (February 24, 2000) Concerning Explanations of the Competition Council on the Definition of the Relevant Market. Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2000, no. 19-487.
• Resolution no. 1S-172 (December 9, 2004) on Approval of Requirements and Conditions in Respect of Agreements of Minor Importance which do not Appreciably Restrict Competition. Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2004, no. 181-6732.
• Resolution no. 2S-10 (May 12, 2011). Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2011, no. 39(1)-353.
• T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV, Vodafone Libertel BV v. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit. European Court of Justice, 2009, no. 8/108.
• Völk v. Vervaecke. European Court of Justice, 1969, no. 5/69.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10076-012-0003-1