On the Potential to Apply De Minimis Exemption for Agreements Containing Hardcore Restraints: European Union Practice

Puksas, Andrius

doi:10.2478/v10076-012-0003-1

Abstract

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.

References

Annual Report 2007-2009. Comision Nacional de la Competencia // http://www.cncompetencia.es
Search in Google Scholar
"Beware of legal privilege?! Dutch de minimis exemption for hardcore infringements in line with EU law." Competition Newsletter, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (February 2011) // http://www.debrauw.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Legal%20Alerts/Competition/Competition%20Newsletter%20February%202011.html
Search in Google Scholar
Drexl, Josef, Laurence Idot, and Joel Maneger. Economic Theory and Competition Law. Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009.10.4337/9781781950074
Search in Google Scholar
Garrigues Antitrust Newsletter No. 18 (December 2009) // http://www.garrigues.com/es/Publicaciones/Newsletters/Documents/Antitrust_Newsletter_18_en_29122009170534.pdf
Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Alison, and Brenda Sufrin. EU Competition Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar
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): 783-818.10.1177/0003603X1005500405
Search in Google Scholar
Kalbfleisch, Pieter. "Crisis geen vrijbrief voor verboden afspraken" [Crisis is no Excuse for Illegal Agreements]. The 2008 Annual bulletin (January 28, 2009) // http://www.nmanet.nl
Search in Google Scholar
Kjølbye, Lars. "Escaping Effects Analysis: The Commission's New Approach to Restrictions by Object." CPI Antitrust Journal: Covington & Burling LLP (2011 (1)).
Search in Google Scholar
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). www.concurrences.com
Search in Google Scholar
Ritter, Lennart, and David W. Braun. European Competition Law: A Practitioner's Guide. Third Edition. Kluwer Law International, 2004.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
Van Bael & Bellis. Competition Law on the European Community. Kluwer Law International, 2005.
Search in Google Scholar
Verras, Nikolaos. "Developments in Vertical Agreements." The Antitrust bulletin Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter 2010): 843-874.10.1177/0003603X1005500407
Search in Google Scholar
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). http://www.cjel.net/online/16_1-verras/
Search in Google Scholar
Whish, Richard. Competition Law. Sixth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
Competition Authority v. Beef Industry Development Society Ltd and Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd. European Court of Justice, 2008, no. C-209/07.
Search in Google Scholar
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Gazette, 2008, no. C 115/47.
Search in Google Scholar
European Night Services v. Commission. The Court of First Instance, 1998, Case T-374/94.
Search in Google Scholar
General Motors BV v. Commission of the European Communities. European Court of Justice, 2006, no. C-551/03.
Search in Google Scholar
Guidelines (May 19, 2010) on Vertical Restraints. European Commission. Official Gazette, 2010, no. C 130/01.
Search in Google Scholar
Haller GMBh; Mercedes Pedraz Calvo. Audiencia Nacional [National Court of the Kingdom of Spain], 2009, no. 418/2008.
Search in Google Scholar
ICI v. Dyestuffs (Commission). European Court of Justice, 1972, no. 48/69.
Search in Google Scholar
Law on Competition of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 1997 [with amendments which entered into force after July 1, 2009] // http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/competitionact.htm
Search in Google Scholar
Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 1999, no. 30-856.
Search in Google Scholar
MDC Ingeniería/Productos Haller. Comision Nacional de la Competencia [National Competition Commission of the Kingdom of Spain], 2008, no. 634/07.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
Resolution no. 2S-10 (May 12, 2011). Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2011, no. 39(1)-353.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
Völk v. Vervaecke. European Court of Justice, 1969, no. 5/69.
Search in Google Scholar

On the Potential to Apply De Minimis Exemption for Agreements Containing Hardcore Restraints: European Union Practice

Abstract

Paradigm

My account