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 NL 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

Team

Related news

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring