PL EN


2012 | 5 | 2 | 65-80
Article title

The EU Practice of Horizontal Agreement Assessment in Accordance with the Rule of Providing De Minimis Exemption

Authors
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
This article analyses the practice of horizontal agreement assessment in accordance with its impact on competition. The following research is based on analysis of scientific literature, current provisions of European Union and national legal acts, as well as official positions of the European Commission (hereinafter - EC) and national authorities. The current inconsistent practice of horizontal agreement assessment within the EU creates space for multiple interpretations. It is important to emphasize that the assessment rules provided in legal acts are, by their nature, only guidelines. More flexibility, but also more obscurity, in the assessment process bring with it the possibility for institutions to independently set priorities (for instance ‘priority rule’ in Lithuanian legislation, i.e. in the Articles 18.2.3. and 24.2.8 of the Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania, Official Gazette, 2012, no. 42-2041). The article analyses current regulation of horizontal agreement assessments in accordance with minor impact on competition.
Publisher
Year
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
65-80
Physical description
Dates
published
2012-12-01
online
2013-02-08
Contributors
  • Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law (Lithuania), Ateities str. 20, Vilnius LT-08303, Lithuania, andrius_puksas@mruni.eu
References
  • 1. Bishop, Simon, and Mike Walker. The Economics of EC Competition Law:Concepts, Application and Measurement. 3rd edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell and Thomson Reuters, 2010.
  • 2. Carree, Martin A., Andrea Guenster, and Pieter Maarten Schinkel. “European Antitrust Policy 1957-2004: An Analysis of Competition Decisions.” Review of Industrial Organization 36(2010).
  • 3. Jones, Alison, and Brenda Sufrin. EU Competition Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  • 4. Motta, Massimo. Competition Policy: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  • 5. Norkus, Irmantas. Prohibited Agreements in Accordance with EC Competition Law. Doctoral dissertation. Vilnius: Social sciences (01 S), 2001.
  • 6. Puksas, Andrius. “On the Potential to Apply De Minimis Exemption for Agreements Containing Hardcore Restraints: European Union Practice.” Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 5:1 (2012): 46-69.
  • 7. 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.
  • 8. Švirinas, Daivis. The Regulation of Vertical Agreements in Competition Law. Doctoral dissertation. Vilnius: Social sciences (01 S), 2004.
  • 9. Whish, Richard. Competition Law. 7th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • 1. BPB v Commission. The Court of First Instance. 2008, no. C 209 (Case T-53/03).
  • 2. Communication (January 14, 2011) on Guidelines on the Applicability ofArticle 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union toHorizontal Co-operation Agreements. European Commission. Official Gazette, 2011, no. C 11/01.
  • 3. Competition (May 4, 2010): Commission Consults on New Regime forAssessment of Horizontal Co-operation Agreements. European Commission. 2010, MEMO/10/163.
  • 4. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Gazette, 2008, no. C 115/47.
  • 5. Draft “Guidelines (May 4, 2010) on the Applicability of Article 101 of theTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operationAgreements”. European Commission. SEC (2010) 528/2.
  • 6. European Night Services v Commission. The Court of First Instance. 1998 (Case T-374/94).
  • 7. Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2012, no. 42-2041.
  • 8. Miller International Schallplatten GmbH v Commission of the EuropeanCommunities (Case 19/77). European Court of Justice. 1978, ECR 131.
  • 9. Notice (December 22, 2001) on Agreements of Minor Importance which donot Appreciably Restrict Competition under Article 81(1) of the TreatyEstablishing the European Community (de minimis). European Commission. Official Gazette, 2001, no. 368/07.
  • 10. Notice (December 9, 1997) on the Definition of Relevant Market for thePurposes of Community Competition Law. European Commission. Official Gazette, 1997, no. 372/03.
  • 11. Notice (January 6, 2001) “Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 of theEC Treaty to Horizontal Cooperation Agreements”. European Commission. Official Gazette, 2001, C 3/02 (expired).
  • 12. Resolution no. 17 (February 24, 2000) Concerning Explanations of theCompetition Council on the Definition of the Relevant Market. Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2000, no. 19-487.
  • 13. Resolution no. 1S-172 (December 9, 2004) on Approval of Requirements andConditions in Respect of Agreements of Minor Importance which do notAppreciably Restrict Competition. Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2004, no. 181-6732.
  • 14. Resolution no. 2S-10 (May 12, 2011). Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2011, no. 39(1)-353.
  • 15. Resolution no. 2S-13 (June 9, 2011). Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2011, no. 48(1)-439.
  • 16. Resolution no. 2S-14 (June 11, 2009). Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2009, no. 47(1)-611.
  • 17. Resolution no. 2S-29 (November 22, 2010). Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2010, no. 90(1)-1071.
  • 18. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (EEC). 1957.
  • 19. Völk v Vervaecke. European Court of Justice. 1969, no. 5/69.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.doi-10_2478_v10076-012-0011-1
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.