Short Reads

Court of Justice rules on the application of competition law to agricultural producer organisations

Court of Justice rules on the application of competition law to agric

Court of Justice rules on the application of competition law to agricultural producer organisations

01.12.2017 EU law

On 14 November 2017, the European Court of Justice rendered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling from the French Supreme Court. The Court clarified the conditions under which competition rules must be applied to agricultural producer organisations (POs). POs are established to pursue the objectives of the common agricultural policy and may – if certain criteria are met – be exempted from the competition rules.

In March 2012, the French competition authority found that several undertakings, POs and other market organisations had implemented a cartel in the endive market. The cartel consisted of the fixing of minimum prices, coordination of the quantity of endives placed on the market and the exchange of strategic information. The undertakings and associations subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the practices in question were necessary to pursue the objectives of the common agricultural policy and should therefore be excluded from the scope of the competition rules. The French Supreme Court asked preliminary questions to the Court of Justice on the issue.

According to the Court, the common agricultural policy takes precedence over the objectives in the field of competition. However, the common organisation of markets in agricultural products is not a competition-free zone. The Court therefore examined whether the practices of POs and associations of POs (APOs), such as those at issue, are excluded from the scope of the competition rules.

First of all, it is required that the practices of the POs and APOs are necessary to achieve the objectives of the common agricultural policy. According to the Court, this means that the practice is implemented by an entity that is recognized by the Member State as a PO or an APO and that is entitled to pursue the objectives of the common agricultural policy. Moreover, only coordination between producers that are members of the same recognized PO or APO can be justified.

Secondly, the practices must also be proportionate to the pursuit of the objectives assigned to the PO or APO. The Court ruled that the exchange of strategic information between producers is liable to be proportionate, as well as the concentration of supply to strengthen the position of producers vis-à-vis the greater concentration of demand. However, the Court concluded that the collective fixing of minimum sales may not be considered to be proportionate since it has the effect of reducing the already low level of competition in the markets for agricultural products.  

With its judgment, the Court clarified the conditions under which agreements on prices or quantity, or the exchange of information by members of such an organisation may escape the prohibition of Article 101 TFEU.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case
  2. National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision
  3. General Court partially annuls the Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

Team

Related news

09.05.2018 NL law
FAQ: Hoe is de bestuurlijke handhaving van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) vormgegeven?

Articles - Op 25 mei 2018 treedt de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming ("AVG") in werking. De verordening heeft rechtstreekse werking in het Nederlandse rechtssysteem. Het gevolg daarvan is dat de Nederlandse privacywaakhond, de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, een scala handhavingsinstrumenten op grond van de AVG kan inzetten om naleving van de privacywetgeving te bevorderen.

Read more

01.05.2018 EU law
European Commission imposes record fine on Altice for premature implementation of PT Portugal acquisition

Short Reads - On 24 April 2018, the European Commission announced that it had imposed a fine of EUR 124.5 million on Altice for acquiring control of PT Portugal before clearance by the Commission ('gun-jumping'). The fine is more than six times the amount which was previously imposed by the Commission for similar offences [see our November 2017 Newsletter for a discussion of the Marine Harvest case]. The Commission's recent enforcement actions against gun-jumping violations highlight the importance of strict competition law compliance during M&A transactions.

Read more

01.05.2018 EU law
European Commission proposes draft Regulation on online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - On 26 April 2018, the European Commission proposed a draft EU Regulation on key aspects of the contractual relationship between online platforms and their business users. The aim of the proposed Regulation is to create a fair and transparent business environment for smaller businesses and traders that use online search engines and online platforms to reach consumers. The proposed Regulation would be the first EU legislation to specifically address business-to-business relationships of this kind.

Read more

01.05.2018 EU law
Germany did not err in extraditing an Italian citizen to the US for a competition law infringement

Short Reads - On 10 April 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Germany did not breach EU law by extraditing an Italian citizen to the United States for a competition law infringement in a situation where Germany's constitutional law does not permit extradition of its own nationals. The case highlights that extradition to the US for competition law infringements can be a real possibility for EU citizens.

Read more

01.05.2018 EU law
District Court of Amsterdam rules on requests for pre-procedural hearings

Short Reads - On 29 March 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled on requests for pre-procedural hearings in relation to the alleged infringements in the two separate cases of Trucks and CRT. This is the first time a Dutch court has ruled on a request for a pre-procedural hearing in follow-on damages cases. The District Court of Amsterdam rejected both requests because it did not consider it likely that a pre-procedural hearing would be useful in either case.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring