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

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring