Guidance on restrictions of competition ‘by object’ for the purpose of defining which agreements may benefit from the De Minimis Notice:2.2.1 General principles

Guidance on restrictions of competition ‘by object’ for the purpose of defining which agreements may benefit from the De Minimis Notice

2.2.1 General principles

Geldend

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.

Any arrangement by which competitors allocate markets (geographic markets or product markets) or customers is considered a restriction by object if it takes place in the context of a pure market sharing agreement between competitors (that is to say, a cartel not linked to any wider cooperation between the parties). If the conduct of the parties to an agreement (for example, a distribution agreement between actual or potential competitors) shows that their objective was to share the market, that objective may be taken into account in deciding whether the agreement is a restriction by object.1. Allocation of markets can also be achieved through restrictions on where the parties may sell (actively and/or passively)2. or through restrictions on production.

Case C-41/96 ACF Chemie farma NV v Commission

A cartel in which undertakings agreed to retain their respective domestic markets and fix prices and quotas for the export of quinine.

Joined cases 29/83 and 30/83 CRAM v Commission

Concerted action on market sharing with a view to protect markets against parallel imports of certain products in the market for zinc (cartel).

Cases T-370/09, GDF Suez v Commission and T-360/09, E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON v Commission

In the context of an agreement to jointly build a pipeline to import gas into EU Member States, competitors agreed not to sell gas transported over this pipeline in each other's home markets and maintained that market sharing agreement after the liberalisation of the gas market.

Case 39226 Lundbeck

An agreement whereby a competitor pays a significant amount to an actual (or potential) competitor to stay out of a particular market was considered to be a form of market sharing.

Case 39839 Telefónica and Portugal Telecom

A non-compete clause between competitors (in this case a clause between the parties to stay out of each other's activities in a certain geographic area) was seen as market sharing.

Case 39685 Fentanyl

Potential competitors concluded a ‘co-promotion’ agreement (where very little or nothing was done to promote the drug) which provided for significant payments on a monthly basis for as long as the competitor stayed out of the market. This practice was considered a form of market sharing (‘market exclusion’) since the aim of the agreement was to keep the potential competitor out of the market.

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.