ANTICOMPETITIVE PRICE FIXING IN DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS – ECJ C-211/22, SUPER BOCK V. PORTUGUESE COMPETITION AUTHORITY

Authors

  • Marta Vejseli International Balkan University, North Macedonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35120/sciencej0203147v

Keywords:

vertical agreements, resale price maintenance, Art 101 TFEU, price fixing, competition law

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bauer / Rahlmeyer / Schöner, (2020), Vertriebskartellrecht. § 9 Preisbindungen, para 12.

Communication from the Commission. (2022). Commission Notice, Guidelines on vertical restraints (2022/C 248/01).

ECJ, Judgment of December 13, 2012, Case C-226/11, para. 37 – Expedia.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), July 15, 1970, Case C-261/70, para. 112 – ACF.

German Competition Authority. (July 2017). Guidelines on Price Fixing Prohibition in the Field of Food Retail

https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/DE/Diskussions_Hintergrundpapier/Hinweispapier%20Preisbindung%20im%20Lebensmitteleinzelhandel.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

Kluwer Competition Law Blog. (July 17, 2023). Unraveling the ECJ’s Verdict in Case C-211/22 – Super Bock: The Golden Rules to Assess Vertical Price-Fixing Agreements in EU Competition Law, Gonçalo Rosas, Inês F. Neves, Joana Fraga Nunes (Morais Leitão). https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/07/17/unravelling-the-ecjs-verdict-in-case-c-211-22-super-bock-the-golden-rules-to-assess-vertical-price-fixing-agreements-in-eu-competition-law/

Regulation (EU) 2022/720.

Judgment of the Court of 3 December 1987 in Case 136/86, BNIC v Aubert, para 18.

Judgment of 11 July 2013, Ziegler v Commission, C 439/11 P, EU:C:2013:513, para 93.

Judgment of the Court of 3 July 1985 in Case 243/83, SA Binon & CIE, vs. SA Agence et messagieries de la presse.

Judgement of the Court of 14 March 2013 in Case C-32/11, Allianz Hungária Biztositó Zrt and Others v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal.

Visma Enterprise. (November 18, 2021). Court of 18 November 2021 in Case C-306/20.

Jacques Buhart, Stéphane Dionnet, Frédéric Pradelles. (July 11, 2023). Vertical agreements & restriction of competition by object: What’s new in Europe? https://www.mwe.com/insights/vertical-agreements-restriction-of-competition-by-object-whats-new-in-europe/

Downloads

Published

2023-09-26

How to Cite

Vejseli, M. . (2023). ANTICOMPETITIVE PRICE FIXING IN DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS – ECJ C-211/22, SUPER BOCK V. PORTUGUESE COMPETITION AUTHORITY. SCIENCE International Journal, 2(3), 147–150. https://doi.org/10.35120/sciencej0203147v

Metrics