Short Reads

General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction

General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction

General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction

01.07.2016 NL law

On 28 June 2016, the General Court ("GC") ruled on appeals by Telefónica and Portugal Telecom ("PT") against the decision of the European Commission to impose  fines of EUR 67 million and EUR 12 million respectively. The judgments confirm the findings of the Commission that the non-compete clause agreed upon between the parties amounted to a market sharing agreement with the object of restricting  competition. The GC, however, referred the case back to the Commission as it found that the Commission had erred in calculating the amount of the fine.

 

Telefónica and PT together held the shares in the Brazilian telecom company Vivo Participações through a joint venture company. In 2010, Telefónica and PT concluded a stock purchase agreement by which Telefónica acquired sole control over Vivo. That agreement included a non-compete clause prohibiting the companies from conducting business in the telecommunications sector that "can be deemed to be in competition with the other in the Iberian market", excluding economic activities already performed by the companies.

In its judgements, the GC ruled that the Commission had rightfully concluded that the non-compete clause amounted to a market-sharing agreement with the object of restricting competition. The GC clarified that the non-compete clause did not qualify as an ancillary restraint as the parties were not able to prove that the restriction was necessary for the implementation of the Vivo transaction.

The GC, however, ruled that the Commission had erred in law in calculating the amount of the fine as it had failed to conduct a detailed legal and economic assessment of the sales directly or indirectly relating to the infringement. As the non-compete clause only covered activities in which the parties were actual or potential competitors, the Commission should have excluded sales which were not covered by the clause.

The judgments show that non-compete clauses in the context of a transaction require careful review and confirms that such clauses have to be necessary to the implementation of the transaction to qualify as an ancillary restraint. The judgments also show that once the Commission decides to calculate the fine on the basis of the sales relating to the infringement, it should conduct a detailed analysis before calculating  the correct amount of sales.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel
2.
General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request
3. District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
4. Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands
5. New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016
6. General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring