{"title":"ANTICOMPETITIVE PRICE FIXING IN DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS – ECJ C-211/22, SUPER BOCK V. PORTUGUESE COMPETITION AUTHORITY","authors":"Marta Vejseli","doi":"10.35120/sciencej0203147v","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On June 29, 2023, the judgment concerning the case C-211/22, Super Bock v. Portuguese Competition Authority, was released by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). This judgment delivers a comprehensive review of fundamental competition law principles pertaining to vertical agreements. In this judgement was examined the business approach of Super Bock, a manufacturing Portuguese company. The preliminary ruling emphasizes to the court referring the case the vital distinction between hardcore restrictions as defined by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and competition-constraining practices falling within the purview of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the expansive scope of the term “agreement” according to Article 101(1) of the TFEU, while also highlighting the array of (both direct and indirect) evidence that can substantiate the identification of an agreement. In alignment with established legal precedents, ECJ reinforces the principle that an agreement encompassing nearly the entire geographical expanse, though not entirely exhaustive, of a Member State can still impact the inter-member trade. Vertical agreements involve relationships between entities at various levels of the supply chain, such as manufacturers and distributors. The key aspects addressed in this judgment have direct relevance to how manufacturers interact with their distribution networks and set pricing policies, which in turn can affect market dynamics and competition within the manufacturing industry. The Super Bock v. Portuguese Competition Authority judgment serves as a pivotal milestone in clarifying the legal framework governing vertical agreements in the European Union. Its comprehensive analysis of competition law principles provides valuable guidance to businesses operating within the EU, ensuring a more transparent and predictable regulatory environment for vertical agreements and, consequently, fostering healthy competition in the market. The ECJ confirmed for the first time the established EU law principles regarding vertical price-fixing agreements. It emphasizes that an agreement should not rigidly be classified by actions without considering the broader context. Although deviating from stricter framework centered on the primary purpose and severe restrictions may complicate the application of the law, this ruling encourages a more thoughtful evaluation of vertical agreements and their overlap with competition law.","PeriodicalId":9803,"journal":{"name":"Chemical Science International Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemical Science International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35120/sciencej0203147v","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
On June 29, 2023, the judgment concerning the case C-211/22, Super Bock v. Portuguese Competition Authority, was released by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). This judgment delivers a comprehensive review of fundamental competition law principles pertaining to vertical agreements. In this judgement was examined the business approach of Super Bock, a manufacturing Portuguese company. The preliminary ruling emphasizes to the court referring the case the vital distinction between hardcore restrictions as defined by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and competition-constraining practices falling within the purview of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the expansive scope of the term “agreement” according to Article 101(1) of the TFEU, while also highlighting the array of (both direct and indirect) evidence that can substantiate the identification of an agreement. In alignment with established legal precedents, ECJ reinforces the principle that an agreement encompassing nearly the entire geographical expanse, though not entirely exhaustive, of a Member State can still impact the inter-member trade. Vertical agreements involve relationships between entities at various levels of the supply chain, such as manufacturers and distributors. The key aspects addressed in this judgment have direct relevance to how manufacturers interact with their distribution networks and set pricing policies, which in turn can affect market dynamics and competition within the manufacturing industry. The Super Bock v. Portuguese Competition Authority judgment serves as a pivotal milestone in clarifying the legal framework governing vertical agreements in the European Union. Its comprehensive analysis of competition law principles provides valuable guidance to businesses operating within the EU, ensuring a more transparent and predictable regulatory environment for vertical agreements and, consequently, fostering healthy competition in the market. The ECJ confirmed for the first time the established EU law principles regarding vertical price-fixing agreements. It emphasizes that an agreement should not rigidly be classified by actions without considering the broader context. Although deviating from stricter framework centered on the primary purpose and severe restrictions may complicate the application of the law, this ruling encourages a more thoughtful evaluation of vertical agreements and their overlap with competition law.
2023年6月29日,欧洲法院(“ECJ”)发布了关于C-211/22, Super Bock诉葡萄牙竞争管理局一案的判决。本判决对与垂直协议有关的基本竞争法原则进行了全面审查。在这一判断中,审查了葡萄牙制造公司Super Bock的商业方法。初步裁决向提交案件的法院强调了垂直区块豁免条例(VBER)定义的核心限制与属于《欧洲联盟运作条约》(TFEU)第101(1)条范围内的竞争限制做法之间的重要区别。此外,该裁决根据TFEU第101(1)条澄清了“协议”一词的广泛范围,同时也强调了可以证实协议的一系列(直接和间接)证据。与现有的法律先例一致,欧洲法院强调了一项原则,即一项协议几乎涵盖了一个成员国的整个地理范围,尽管不是完全详尽的,但仍然可以影响成员国之间的贸易。垂直协议涉及供应链上不同层次的实体之间的关系,例如制造商和分销商。本判决中涉及的关键方面与制造商如何与其分销网络互动和制定定价政策直接相关,这反过来又会影响制造业的市场动态和竞争。超级银行诉葡萄牙竞争管理局的判决是澄清欧盟纵向协议法律框架的关键里程碑。它对竞争法原则的全面分析为在欧盟内经营的企业提供了宝贵的指导,确保垂直协议的监管环境更加透明和可预测,从而促进市场的健康竞争。欧洲法院首次确认了有关垂直价格垄断协议的既定欧盟法律原则。它强调,不应在不考虑更广泛背景的情况下,将协议严格地按行动分类。尽管偏离以主要目的为中心的更严格的框架和严格的限制可能使法律的适用复杂化,但这一裁决鼓励对垂直协议及其与竞争法的重叠进行更深思熟虑的评估。