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

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