umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Court of Justice dismisses appeal by Telefónica on non-compete clause in telecoms transaction

Court of Justice dismisses appeal by Telefónica on non-compete clause

Court of Justice dismisses appeal by Telefónica on non-compete clause in telecoms transaction

02.01.2018 EU law

On 13 December 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal brought by Telefónica against a judgment of the General Court (GC) regarding a non-compete agreement [see our July 2016 Newsletter]. The judgment confirms the finding of the GC that the non-compete clause agreed upon between Telefónica and Portugal Telecom (PT) amounted to a market sharing agreement with the object of restricting competition.

In 2010, Telefónica and PT concluded a share purchase agreement by which Telefónica acquired sole control over the Brazilian telecom company Vivo. Telefónica and PT had previously jointly held the shares of Vivo. That agreement included a non-compete clause prohibiting the companies from conducting business in the telecommunications sector that "can be deemed to be in competition with the other in the Iberian market", excluding economic activities already performed by the companies. The clause also contained the wording "to the extent permitted by law".

In 2013, the Commission found that the non-compete clause amounted to a market sharing agreement with the object of restricting competition and fined Telefónica and PT EUR 67 million and EUR 12 million respectively. The GC upheld this finding, but found that the Commission erred in calculating the fine.

Telefónica appealed this judgment and argued, among other things, that its right of defence had been breached and that the GC erred in law in finding that the non-compete clause amounted to a by object infringement. The Court firstly established that the GC had in fact examined the evidence brought forward by Telefónica and its right of defence had not been breached. As to classifying the non-compete clause as an by object infringement, the Court acknowledged that it is well established that market sharing agreements constitute a particularly serious breach of competition law. This finding was not affected by the fact that the clause contained the wording "to the extent permitted by law".

Telefónica also argued that the GC's assessment of the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the non-compete clause should have been called into question. The Court, however, held that these claims were based on a misreading of the judgment under appeal. The GC did not find that the clause was not essential for PT because it did not qualify as an ancillary restriction under competition law. It simply found that Telefónica had not submitted any evidence to demonstrate the essential character of the non-compete clause.

The judgment confirms that the non-compete clause entered into by the parties qualified as an by object infringement. Non-compete clauses agreed upon in the context of a transaction could qualify as ancillary restraints only if they are essential for the implementation of that transaction.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice: Suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms
2. Court of The Hague confirms that the ACM can copy mobile phones during an inspection

Related news

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
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

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