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

Abuse of economic dependence and unfair contract terms in B2B relations: ready for 2020?

Abuse of economic dependence and unfair contract terms in B2B relatio

Abuse of economic dependence and unfair contract terms in B2B relations: ready for 2020?

03.07.2019 BE law

Belgium recently adopted a new act prohibiting (1) the abuse of economic dependence, (2) the use of unfair contract terms and (3) unfair market practices in B2B relationships.

Non-dominant companies are well-advised to assess their position of economic dependency towards one another to ensure compliance with the new rules and seek possible justifications for certain practices. In addition, and independent of any position of dominance or economic dependence, contracts will have to be revised. The prohibitions are set to enter into force in 2020 (and those of unfair commercial practices already in September 2019), so companies should start making their evaluations now; as the saying goes, well-begun is half-done.

The Belgian act introduces the following three prohibitions:

1. A prohibition on the abuse of a situation of economic dependence, entering into force 1 June 2020.

The prohibition on abuse of economic dependence is inspired by similar provisions in other member states, such as France and Germany. It concerns situations where one company is in a specific weak position towards its counterpart(s), even where the other company is not in a dominant position. Economic dependence is defined as the position of submission of one company to another, characterised by (i) the absence of a reasonable equivalent alternative that is available within a reasonable time and under reasonable conditions and costs (ii) that allows this company to impose conditions that cannot be obtained under normal market conditions. Notably, the position of economic dependence is not prohibited; only the abuse of it. The act lists examples of such abuses which are entirely inspired by the list of prohibited abuses of a dominant position contained in article 102 TFEU and article IV.1 of Belgium's Code of economic law.

The abuse of economic dependence is qualified as a new category of restrictive practice, alongside the existing prohibitions on cartels and abuse of dominant position. As a result, the Belgian competition authorities are fully competent to investigate such practices and impose sanctions, including fines up to a maximum of 2% of the worldwide turnover of the company concerned. Ordinary judges too will remain competent to sanction such practices and to impose damages.

2. A prohibition on unfair terms in B2B contracts: a black list, a grey list, and a general prohibition on apparent imbalance in the contract terms, entering into force on 1 December 2020 for future contracts.

Regarding the unfair terms, the act specifies four clauses (in the so-called black list) which are always prohibited in B2B contracts, as well as eight clauses (the so-called grey list) which are only allowed in contracts if they can be justified. The grey list includes clauses on limitation of liability, unilateral modifications of prices and characteristics of the contract, limitation of damages, among others. These rules also apply outside any situation of economic dependence. On top, the act in general prohibits clauses that create a non-justifiable imbalance. The new rules will significantly impact existing contract terms and will oblige companies to review clauses in future contracts.

3. A prohibition on misleading and aggressive market practices in B2B relationships, entering into force on 1 September 2019.

The rules on unfair practices prohibit misleading and aggressive practices in a B2B context. The current prohibition on unfair market practices in B2B is thereby further clarified and extended.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

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