Short Reads

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda

03.10.2016 NL law

On 31 August 2016, the European Commission published its decision rendering the commitments offered by fourteen container liner shipping companies legally binding. The Commission closed its formal investigation that it started in 2011 without finding any competition law infringements. However, the Commission did establish that the practice of publishing future price increases for identified trade routes could potentially allow competitors to coordinate their pricing behavior.  

The carriers regularly announced their intended future price increases for freight services on their websites, via the press, or in other ways. These announcements indicated the amount of the increase per transported container unit, the relevant trade route and the planned implementation date. The Commission found that after such a price announcement, some or all of the other carriers announced similar intended rate increases for the same or similar routes and implementation dates. Announced price increases were sometimes postponed or modified by some of the container shipping companies, possibly aligning them with the announcements made by other carriers.

The Commission had concerns that the price announcements were of little value for customers, as they did not provide information on the new full prices they would be asked to pay. In addition, the announcements only had little committal value, so customers could not rely on them when making purchasing decisions. Furthermore, the Commission expressed concern that the carriers' practice may have allowed the companies to explore each other's pricing intentions and coordinate their behaviour. According to the Commission, this may have enabled the carriers to 'test' the implementation of a potential price increase, thereby reducing strategic uncertainty about the companies' future behaviour.

In order to address the Commission's competition concerns, the carriers offered commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The parties offered that price announcements would: (i) contain at least the main elements of the total price, such as the base rate and security and handling charges, the services to which they apply and the period to which they relate; (ii) not be made more than 31 days before their implementation date; and (iii) be binding on the carriers for their validity period as maximum prices.

Public price announcements are common practice in several sectors and the Commission has not taken action against price signalling for a long time. However, in line with the ACM's views in the mobile operators case in the Netherlands, the Commission's commitment decision shows that announcements on future commercial conditions warrant extra caution, such as providing definite information that is valuable for customers.

 

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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more