Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
Kayseri escort
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

Cheaper beer ahead? AB InBev fined for cross-border sales restrictions

Cheaper beer ahead? AB InBev fined for cross-border sales restrictions

Cheaper beer ahead? AB InBev fined for cross-border sales restrictions

06.06.2019 NL law

Dominant companies beware of hindering cross-border sales between resellers through, for instance, labelling or packaging measures to make your products less attractive for import.

The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 200 million fine on AB InBev, the world's largest beer company, for abusing its dominant position in the Belgian beer market by hindering cheaper imports of Jupiler, the company's most popular beer brand, from the Netherlands into Belgium. The fine may result in more cross-border sales, as multinational retailers in particular may take it as a cue to begin sourcing more products from the cheapest EU Member States.

According to the Commission's press release, (the Commission decision is not public yet), AB InBev is dominant in the Belgian beer market due to the company's consistently high market share and ability to increase prices independently from other beer manufacturers, the existence of barriers to significant entry and expansion, and the limited countervailing buyer power of retailers as a result of the essential nature of certain beer brands sold by AB InBev.

AB InBev abused its dominant position by restricting the possibility for supermarkets and wholesalers to buy cheaper Jupiler beer in the Netherlands and subsequently import it into Belgium. The overall objective of this strategy was to maintain higher prices in Belgium by limiting imports of less expensive Jupiler beer products from the Netherlands.

According to the Commission, AB InBev achieved this by:

  1. changing the packaging of some of its Jupiler beer products supplied to Dutch retailers and wholesalers to make it harder for them to sell in Belgium, particularly by removing the French version of mandatory information from the label, as well as changing the design and size of beer cans.
  2. limiting the volumes of Jupiler beer supplied to a Dutch wholesaler to restrict imports of these products into Belgium.
  3. refusing to sell these products to one retailer unless the retailer agreed to limit its imports of less expensive Jupiler beer from the Netherlands to Belgium.
  4. making customer promotions for beer offered to Dutch retailers conditional upon the retailer not offering the same promotions to its Belgian customers.

Since AB InBev cooperated beyond its legal obligation to do so (including proposing a remedy), the Commission granted a 15% reduction under its non-cartel cooperation procedure. The remedy will ensure that the packaging of all existing and new products in Belgium, France and the Netherlands will include mandatory food information in both Dutch and French for the coming 5 years.

In light of this decision, dominant companies should review their conduct towards resellers, including the imposition of labelling or packaging measures, to assess whether cross-border sales may be restricted. In addition, they should be aware of a likely increase in cross-border sales, since multinational retailers may take the fine as a cue to source more products from the cheapest EU Member States.

 

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

 

 

Team

Related news

03.12.2020 NL law
On the right track? GC sends mixed messages with Lithuanian Railways

Short Reads - The essential facilities doctrine imposes on holders of indispensable facilities a duty to deal with their competitors. While a railway track may seem essential, a track’s removal does not fall under this doctrine if carried out by a monopolist manager of a state-developed facility bearing a statutory obligation to grant third parties access to its facilities. According to the General Court, the Commission was therefore correct to use the general framework for abuse of a dominant position to assess the Lithuanian railway operator’s removal of a railway track.

Read more

11.11.2020 EU law
Innovatie en staatssteun. Het CBb leidt de weg bij de belangrijke definities industrieel onderzoek en experimentele ontwikkeling

Short Reads - Het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (“CBb”) heeft op 6 oktober 2020 in een subsidiegeschil nadere invulling gegeven aan het onderscheid tussen “industrieel onderzoek” en “experimentele ontwikkeling”. Dit onderscheid staat centraal in nationale subsidieregelingen en Europese staatssteunregels die overheidsinvesteringen in onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie (“O&O&I”) mogelijk moeten maken.

Read more

03.12.2020 NL law
The next 5 years: European Commission launches New Consumer Agenda

Short Reads - Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission is already looking ahead to set its consumer protection priorities for the next five years. Key points in the New Consumer Agenda include equipping consumers with better information on product sustainability, digital transformation, effective enforcement, safety concerning products ‘made in China’ and protecting particularly vulnerable consumers such as children, older people or those with disabilities. The New Consumer Agenda is a follow-up to the 2018 New Deal for Consumers.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Belgian prohibition on abuse of economic dependence comes into force and new fining guidelines

Short Reads - In 2019, Belgium introduced legislation banning abuse in relationships between companies where there is no dominant position, but rather a position of economic dependence. The act entered into force on 22 August 2020. This category of restrictive practice applies alongside the existing prohibitions on cartels and abuse of a dominant position. It opens up new opportunities but also new threats for companies that are not in a dominant position.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures

Short Reads - Companies beware: the turnover of a joint venture buying a target is not necessarily decisive for determining whether the EU merger thresholds are met. The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s 2017 decision prohibiting the joint acquisition of Cemex’s Hungarian and Croatian subsidiaries by cement companies HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their full-function joint venture (JV).

Read more