Public Discussion on Article 82 Single Branding & Rebates Antonio Creus Brussels, 14th June 2006 AEDC Asociacion Española de Defensa de la Competencia

General Overview Introductory remarks Regarding the Discussion Paper Aren’t we drafting a new “Article 82.3” ? Is the new approach realistic enough? AEDC

Rebates & Single Branding General comment: positive economic approach BUT: clearer rules needed, allowing dominants predictability of their conduct. AND: Such rules should facilitate application of Art. 82 by national authorities and courts AEDC

Rebates & Single Branding Negative effects of single branding obligations and rebates BUT: At the very least rebates involve lower prices, which normally should be welcomed, since it benefits consumers. Most undertakings use single branding obligations and rebates on a regular basis AEDC

Rebates & Single Branding Single branding: less dogmatic approach towards non-predatory discounts by dominant undertakings Purchasing obligations which are short-term or easy to terminate probably do not have foreclosure effects AEDC

Rebates & Single Branding Presumption of illegality based on the degree of foreclosure. BUT: take into account the following: market foreclosure is not an end in itself Single branding may produce pro-competitive effects Single branding is a type of competition for the market AEDC

Rebates & Single Branding The Commission should also have clarified some other points, such as: The duration of reference period for calculating the rebate applicable to a given client. Quantitative rebates and loyalty rebates. AEDC

Rebates & Single Branding Rebates: presumption of legality when the effect is to reduce prices for the final consumer? At least establish a type of ‘safe harbour’ Take into account market power of clients AEDC

Thank You AEDC