Short Reads

National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision

National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law

National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision

01.12.2017 NL law

On 23 November 2017, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court regarding the legal consequences of an European Commission commitment decision. The Spanish court sought guidance as to whether an EU commitment decision concerning long-term exclusive supply agreements between Spain's leading oil and gas company Repsol and its service station tenants, prevented the Spanish court from declaring that the agreements infringed competition law. 

The Court of Justice ruled that an EU commitment decision is without prejudice to the powers of national courts and competition authorities to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

The supply agreements between Repsol and its service station tenants have been the subject of a preliminary assessment by the Commission since 2004. The Commission expressed concerns that these agreements would create significant foreclosure effects on the Spanish market for the retail trade in fuel. To address these concerns, Repsol offered to refrain from concluding long-term exclusivity agreements exceeding 5 years, allow tenants to terminate existing long-term contracts prematurely and ensure the service stations had complete freedom to determine their prices. The Commission adopted the commitments offered by Repsol in a decision, making them legally binding and formally ending the Commission's investigation.

During national proceedings in 2017, Gasorba, one of Repsol's service station tenants, brought an appeal before the Spanish court to annul its supply agreement, claiming that it infringed Article 101 TFEU. The Spanish court asked the Court of Justice whether a national court is precluded from finding that an agreement infringes Article 101 TFEU, when the Commission has already accepted binding commitments concerning that same agreement.

The Court of Justice first considered that the Commission, national courts and competition authorities have parallel powers to apply competition law. The uniform application of EU competition law is in particular ensured by Regulation 1/2003, which establishes that national courts cannot take decisions running counter to the decision adopted by the Commission. The Court found that the nature of a commitment decision is such that it does not establish whether there has been, or whether there is still, an infringement of competition law. Therefore, national courts and competition authorities may still conclude that a certain practice, which is subject to a commitment decision, infringes competition law. Nevertheless, national courts do have to "take into account the preliminary assessment carried out by the Commission and regard it as an indication, if not prima facie evidence, of the anticompetitive nature of the agreement at issue".

This was the first time the Court of Justice addressed a question on the legal consequences of a Commission's commitment decision. In view of the current trend to close competition investigations with commitments, this judgment adds to the legal uncertainty that is created by commitment decisions for private enforcement of competition law.

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

  1. Court of Justice rules on the application of competition law to agricultural producer organisations
  2. Court of Justice dismisses appeal of British Airways in Air Cargo case
  3. General Court partially annuls the Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

Team

Related news

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

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