Short Reads

Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive

Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

03.10.2016 NL law

On 7 September 2016, the Brussels Court of Appeal (the “Court”) confirmed the interim measures of the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) preventing cable and pay TV provider Telenet from exclusively broadcasting the Superprestige Cyclocross competition for five years.

In 2015, the VZW Verenigde Veldritorganisatoren (“VVO”), organizer of the Superprestige cyclocross, granted Telenet exclusive TV broadcasting rights for the Superprestige for five years. As no prior tender had taken place, Telenet’s competitor Proximus filed a complaint to the BCA and asked for interim measures based on an alleged abuse of dominance and/or a violation of the cartel prohibition. The BCA granted the request, as a result of which VVO had to suspend the exclusivity clause and offer the broadcasting rights to any interested party on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms pending a final decision by the BCA [see our January 2016 newsletter].

On appeal, the Court ruled that the BCA applied the correct standard for imposing provisional measures by stating that it was not manifestly unreasonable to hold that the exclusivity agreement may restrict competition on the market for cyclocross broadcasting licenses as well as strengthen Telenet’s dominant position on the retail market for television services. The BCA’s assessment was found to be sufficiently reasoned, based on the exclusive character and length of the agreement, the ‘premium’ character of the content, Telenet’s dominance and the lack of a prior tender.

One of the conditions to obtain interim measures is that the disadvantage must be serious and hard to reverse. In that regard, the Court stated that the BCA is entitled to consider the interests of the complainant as well as of other parties, e.g. sport channels. The fact that Telenet would become the only provider of a comprehensive range of cyclocross races constituted a significant barrier and impairment for its competitors, which could lead to exclusionary effects. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal in its entirety and confirmed the interim measures.

The judgment shows once again that the threshold applied to obtaining interim measures in competition cases as well as the chances of seeing interim measures reversed on appeal in Belgium is low.

 

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

  1. Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel
  2. General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement
  3. European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda
  4. European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple
  5. Commission publishes Preliminary Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry
  6. Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

Team

Related news

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

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