1 / 6

Understanding Restrictions of Competition in EU Law

This article delves into the complexities of defining a "restriction of competition" in EU law, exploring different perspectives, case law examples, and the role of procompetitive benefits. It questions the prevailing wisdom and the effectiveness of Article 101(3) TFUE.

lmctaggart
Download Presentation

Understanding Restrictions of Competition in EU Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What is a «restriction of competition»? Denis Waelbroeck Partner Ashurst LLP, Professor ULB

  2. Case-law very confused : A «restriction of competition» is said to be : • Whatever «restricts the freedom of action of undertakings abstractly» (Ciments et Béton, Hasselblad, …) • Whatever «restricts the freedom of action of undertakings concretely» (M6) • Whatever «impacts on a parameter of competition» (Article 101(3) Guidelines, Mastercard, …) • Whatever «impacts on competitors» or on the «structure of competition» (GSK) • Whatever «affects market integration» (Article 101(3) Guidelines) • Etc. • Procompetitive benefits are only assessed under Article 101(3) TFUE (M6, Article 101(3) Guidelines) TRUE ? General wisdom : 20181120_Chillin'Competition

  3. In my view, this is at odds with : • whole philosophy of « modernisation »: • Effect on consumer is decisive (good or bad?) • Need for a counterfactual analysis • overwhelming majority of case law (LTM/MBU, Delimitis, Pronuptia, Metro, Coditel, Nungesser, GoettrupKlim, ENS, …) ( even post M6 = Wouters, VandenBergh Foods, O2 Germany, ….) • approach followed elsewhere (Article 102, Merger Control) or in other jurisdictions (USA) • presumption of innocence (Menarini) 20181120_Chillin'Competition

  4. Does it render Article 101(3) TFUE superfluous (M6) ? • Article 101(3) TFUE is an efficiency «defence» : it applies when you can be «presumed guilty», hence essentially for «by object» restrictions. • Best described in ENS, para 136, which requires full fledged analysis under Article 101(1) TFUE « unless it is an agreement containing obvious restrictions of competition such as price-fixing, market sharing or the control of outlets […]. In the latter case, such restrictions may be weighed against their claimed pro-competitive effects only in the context of Article [101](3) of the Treaty, with a view to granting an exemption from the prohibition of Article [101](1)». 20181120_Chillin'Competition

  5. Conclusion • The rule is wider than « ancillary restriction»  i.e. effectively a « rule of reason ». • In the end, EU does the same as US : « rule of reason » vs per se • Not « good » or « bad » « because » US do it  Simply both do it because it is « right ». 20181120_Chillin'Competition

More Related