European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 1 New EU Competition Rules for Purchase and Distribution agreements Kris.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IMPACT ESTIMATION PROJECT h o r i z o n s c a n n i n g Anti-trust issues in on-line retailing Ed Smith Director Office of Fair Trading The views expressed.
Advertisements

Vertical agreements and competition law Doc. dr. sc. Jasminka Pecotić Kaufman University of Zagreb-Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Law.
Vertical Relations and Restraints Many transactions take place between two firms, rather than between a firm and consumers Key differences in these types.
Le présent support ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation 1 Legal case « Pierre Fabre Laboratories»  Is it legal to require the permanent presence of.
IMPACT ESTIMATION PROJECT h o r i z o n s c a n n i n g Observations on retail-MFNs and RPM Nelson Jung Director, Mergers Office of Fair Trading The views.
RESTRICITVE PRACTICES AND LENIENCY Zuzana Šimeková European Union – Opportunities and Challenges June 2009, Dubrovnik.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 46 Antitrust Law Chapter 46 Antitrust Law.
EXCHANGE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION AND “HUB & SPOKE” CARTELS 14th May 2014 B UNDES W ETTBEWERBS B EHÖRDE.
Fachgruppentag DAJV 2014 ARIM Fachgruppe Bundeskartellamt 1 Parity Clauses between Hotels and Online Portals - The HRS Test Case in Germany-
Economics of Management Strategy BEE3027 Miguel Fonseca Lecture 8.
ICN 2015 Special Project Online Vertical Restraints Break Out Session 4 - Economic Framework May 1 st, 2015.
4th Competition Day 2010 Beograd, April 12, 2010 Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) Theodor Thanner, Director General Austrian Federal Competition Authority.
The Economics of Minimum Resale Price Maintenance Robert Willig Princeton University Competition Policy Associates (COMPASS)
Administration in International Organizations PUBLIC COMPETITION LAW Class I, 6th Oct 2014 Krzysztof Rokita.
1 REFORM OF ARTICLE 82 EC BIICL, 24 February 2006 Treatment of Rebates Johanne Peyre.
1 LEAR Conference 2009 HOW MUCH CERTAINTY? 25 June 2009 Margaret Bloom King’s College London Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
Article 82 Discussion Paper Luc Peeperkorn Rita Wezenbeek DG Competition, European Commission Rotterdam, 17 March 2006.
Welcome to Mergers and Acquisitions uk. Plan of Topic Definitions Importance Patterns in Mergers and Acquisitions –Merger and Acquisition Activity in.
Joost Haans Antitrust Section Corp. Legal 22 May 2009 Resale Price Maintenance - Time for change? -
The e-Commerce Sector Inquiry
Prohibited agreements: Article 101 (3) Julija Jerneva ( )
Public Policy in Private Markets Debate 3 Vertical Restraints Wrap Up.
European Commission, DG Competition, Directorate A 1 New EU Competition Rules for Purchase and Distribution agreements Luc Peeperkorn Principal Expert.
Vertical Restraints: An Introduction
Navigating the competition law aspects of franchising 2014 UIA Florence Corinne Khayat.
Vertical Restraints Dr. Patrick Krauskopf Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) National Training Workshop on Competition Policy and Law organised by CUTS.
From « Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to horizontal cooperation Agreements » The purpose of these guidelines is to provide.
Merger Remedies By Kenneth L. Danger Presented at the OECD-Korea Regional Centre for Competition.
Competition Policy and Law Presentation to Study Tour for Russian Member Universities of the Virtual Institute Network 26 March 2009.
Trends in Retail Competition: Private Labels, Brands and Competition Policy A Symposium on the Role of Private Labels in Competition between Retailers.
Competition Enforcement in the Recently Acceded Member States Vertical Agreements Michal Petr Office for the Protection of Competition, Czech Republic.
Slide 1 Recognition of Professional Qualifications in the European Single Market for Services Henri Olivier FEE Secretary General FEE (Fédération des Experts.
The dominance concept: new wine in old bottles Miguel de la Mano * Member of the Chief Economist’s Office DG COMP, European Commission FTC/DOJ Hearings.
SMP and dominance Pál Belényesi Verona 29 November November 2006.
EU Discussion Paper on Exclusionary Abuses Michael Albers European Commission DG Competition 54th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting Washington DC, 30 March.
EU Business Law: Anticompetitive agreements (Art. 101 TFEU) Dr. Agata Jurkowska-Gomułka.
Review of the Transfer of Technology Block Exemption Regulation (TTBE) 2001 Report shortcomings of the TTBE new generation of regulations more economic.
Thomas Kramler DG Competition, European Commission (The views expressed are not necessarily those of the European Commission) E-commerce and EU competition.
A ‘back to basics’ approach to online markets Pablo Ibáñez Colomo London School of Economics 18 April 2016.
1 Click your mouse anywhere on the screen to advance the text in each slide. After the starburst appears, click a blue triangle to move to the next slide.
LEB Slide Set 14 Competition Law Matti Rudanko. LEB Slide Set 14 2 A Constitution of Market Economy Well-functioning markets – an unwritten fundamental.
Resale Price Maintenance Section 48. What is resale price maintenance? It is illegal for suppliers to: put pressure on businesses to charge their recommended.
HOW TO DRAFT CLAUSES WHICH COMPLY WITH REGULATION 330/2010
Distribution Problems for US Companies in Europe and How to Avoid Them
Markkinoiden juridinen toimintaympäristö Kalvot 15
DISTRIBUTION AND INTERNET
European Union Law Week 10.
Heading in the wrong direction
EU Competition Rules for Technology Transfer Agreements
Competition Law (EU, USA, Turkey)
Competition Law (EU, USA, Turkey)
Chapter 37 Antitrust Law.
Lear - Laboratorio di economia, antitrust, regolamentazione
Concerted Practices © Łukasz Stępkowski.
The new technology transfer regime More evolution than revolution
Dr Pınar Akman Associate Professor School of Law, University of Leeds
EU Sports Law and Policy Summer School
Why updating our Memorandum? Context
The Geo-Blocking Regulation in Context
Horizontal Restraints
Investor protection and MIFID
The new technology transfer regime
The new Regulation and Guidelines on Vertical Restraints
Fabio Bortolotti Buffa Bortolotti & Mathis, Torino-Milano
Restrictions by object and effect in the digital economy
The EU competition rules on vertical agreements Selective Distribution
MFNs in the Digital Comparison Tools Market Study
CHAPTER 5 Currency Derivatives © 2000 South-Western College Publishing
Internet sales under the new block exemption regulation
Dr. Panayiotis Agisilaou Trojan Economics & Open University of Cyprus
Presentation transcript:

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 1 New EU Competition Rules for Purchase and Distribution agreements Kris Dekeyser Head of Unit European Commission International Conference on Anti-monopoly Agreements concerning Pricing 1 June 2011

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 2 Background to the Commission’s review of its policy on vertical restraints  What are vertical agreements/vertical restraints and what are the competition issues associated with vertical agreements ?  Positive past experience of Block Exemption Regulation (BER) and Guidelines (GL) :  Strong support to keep 1999 framework which introduced effects-based approach  Principle of market share threshold well accepted  Meaningful enforcement = relevant issues of foreclosure and softening of competition (collusion) + taking account of efficiencies  Since 2004: satisfactory interaction Commission-NCAs after modernisation of competition enforcement in EU. BER/GL ensure consistent application  Objective of review last year : to update/improve 1999 BER and GL Result of review: Commission adopts BER 330/2010 (OJ L 102 of ) and GL (OJ C 130 of ) Comp website:

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 3 Background: effects based approach This effects based approach means:  (a) Authority/plaintiff must show likely negative effects under Article 101(1) EC  (b) Defendant must show likely efficiencies under Article 101(3) EC once likely negative effects are established (“consumer welfare test”)  (c) “Safe harbour” as long as market share does not exceed 30% = block exemption => net positive balance presumed  (d) Guidelines provide interpretation of the BER + guidance on a case by case assessment of negative and positive effects where the BER does not apply (above 30% MS)

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 4

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 5 Scope of the block exemption Market share threshold: benefit of BER depends on both the supplier’s and buyer’s Market Share not > 30%  Not only suppliers, but also distributors may have market power (e.g. supermarkets) => coverage by the BER should also depend on buyer’s market share  For supplier: share on the market where supplier sells contract products to the buyer  For buyer: share on the market where buyer purchases the contract products from the supplier

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 6 Hardcore Restrictions (1)  To restrict at which price the buyer may sell (Resale Price Maintenance) agreeing fixed or minimum resale price is a hardcore restriction, but not if recommended or maximum resale price Sale restrictions: to restrict where or to whom the buyer may sell –Passive sale restrictions are hardcore (main exception selective distribution) –Active sale restrictions are hardcore except to protect areas where there is exclusive distribution

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 7 Hardcore restrictions (2) General clarification on the “hardcore approach”  hardcore = no block exemption + presumption of negative effects under Article 101(1) + presumption it is unlikely that the conditions of Art 101(3) are fulfilled (§47)  but individual exemption is not excluded in case of convincing evidence of likely efficiencies (§ and 225)  Hardcore approach = a “rule of reason” approach where the order of bringing forward evidence and showing effects is reversed  first likely efficiencies need to be shown by the firm  before the likely negative effects are shown by the authority

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 8 Hardcore restrictions (3) Resale Price Maintenance (Guidelines §§ ):  Possible negative effects:  facilitation of collusion (both up- and down-stream), in particular if interlocking relations  elimination of intra-brand price competition: direct effect is price increase  loss of pressure on the supplier’s margin  loss of dynamism and innovation from in particular discounters  Possible positive effects:  New entry: avoid free riding (efficiency already recognized for resale restrictions)  Support short term low price advertisement campaigns

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 9 Online Sale Restrictions (1) On the one hand: Distributors should be free to have a website and engage in internet sales... Restrictions on the distributors’ use of the internet are generally considered as hardcore restrictions of passive sales On the other hand: Suppliers should be free to choose distributors/distribution format and prevent possible free riding between them Exclusive distribution: –Possibility to restrict active sales to protect exclusive distribution –Active selling: any efforts to be found specifically in a certain territory/by a certain customer group, e.g., unsolicited s, targeted (online) advertisement (§ 53) –Cf. passive selling: having a website, responding to customer demand without soliciting them, different language options (§ 52)

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 10 Online Sale Restrictions (2) On the other hand... (cont.) : To preserve quality of distribution and prevent free riding, GL clarify that the BER covers obligations to: –have one or more “brick and mortar” shops (but not to punish successful online sales) (§ 54) –impose a minimum amount of sales offline (also possible for the supplier to offer a fixed fee to support the distributor’s offline efforts) (§ 52(c)) –require quality and service conditions to be fulfilled for online sales that are overall equivalent to those applicable to offline sales (§ 56) –use third party platforms only in accordance with standards and conditions agreed between the parties (§ 54) Conclusion : new BER and GL do not impose or favour certain distribution formats but leave it to the consumers to “pick the winners”

European Commission, DG Competition, Policy and Strategy, International Relations 11 More information on verticals: