European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements for which “the object or effect” is to restrict competition. The alternative, i.e. object or effect, has a twofold meaning and is interpreted both procedurally and substantively. Firstly, it is not necessary for the supervisory authorities to wait for a restrictive action to have produced its effect to trigger the prohibition and this rule applies regardless of the nature of the practice at issue. Secondly, in certain cases, it can have a specific meaning: some practices are judged so anticompetitive that they justify to be prohibited per se, i.e. automatically. Consequently, it is irrelevant whether the cartel leads to concrete effects and whether any assessment of those effects is undertaken : exemptions are in principle ruled out . EU case-law traditionally finds that price-fixing  or market allocation agreements  fall under that category; they are now classed as “restrictions by object”, a concept which is reminiscent of the per se prohibitions in US antitrust law . Whatever the behavior of the parties to the agreement: the fact that they have not expressly determined the published price level, have not kept to the agreement, or have pulled out before its implementation  does not change the anticompetitive character of the practice. The Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance  confirms the rules laid down by the courts relative to per se infringements by excluding from its scope certain hardcore restrictions such as agreements for the fixing of prices and the allocation of markets.

For price fixing agreements: Commission Decision No 98/247/EC of 21 January 1998, Alloy surcharge, LawLex200500004749JBJ; Case T-144/89 Cockerill Sambre v Commission [1995] ECR II-947, LawLex200400003653JBJ; Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 Krupp Thyssen Stainless v Commission [2001] ECR II-3757 LawLex200400003567JBJ; Case T-16/99 Lögstör Rör v Commission [2002] ECR II-1633, LawLex200500004886JBJ - For market-sharing agreements: Commission Decision No 78/163/EEC of 20 December 1977, The Distillers Company Limited, Conditions of Sale and Price Terms, LawLex200400002397JBJ; No 87/409/EEC of 13 July 1987, Sandoz, LawLex200400002441JBJ; No 91/298/EEC of 19 December 1990, Soda-ash - Solvay, CFK, LawLex200500004574JBJ; No 91/532/EEC of 5 June 1991, LawLex200400002468JBJ; No 92/426/EEC of 15 July 1992, Viho/Parker Pen, LawLex200500004685JBJ; No 92/262/EEC of 1st April 1992, French-West African shipowners' committees, LawLex200400002904JBJ; No 2001/146/EC of 20 September 2000, Opel, LawLex200500004721JBJ: establishment of a bonus system and exerting of pressure on dealers to stop exports; No 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000, Soda-ash - Solvay, CFK, LawLex200500003892JBJ; No 2001/716/EC of 18 July 2001, SAS Maersk Air and Sun-Air versus SAS and Maersk Air, LawLex200500004672JBJ; No 2001/791/EC of 8 May 2001, Glaxo Wellcome (SA), Aseprofar et Fedifar, Spain Pharma, EAEPC, LawLex200400002669JBJ; Commission Decision No 2002/759/EC of 5 December 2001, Luxembourg Brewers, LawLex200400003555JBJ: agreements to freeze the respective market shares of the participants in order to impede entry of foreign competitors onto the market; No 2004/206/EC of 17 December 2002, Flood flavour enhancers, LawLex200400003526JBJ; the analysis of actual anticompetitive effects carried out only for the purpose of ensuring a full assessment; Case T-66/92 Herlitz v Commission [1994] ECR II-531, LawLex200400003559JBJ; Case T-143/89 Ferriere Nord v Commission [1995] ECR II-917, LawLex200400003650JBJ; Case T-176/95 Accinauto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1635, LawLex200400003598JBJ: measures or agreements intended to prohibit or limit exports; Case T-175/95 BASF v Commission [1999] ECR II-1581, LawLex200400003599JBJ; Case T-62/98 Volkswagen v Commission [2000] ECR II-2707, LawLex200400003580JBJ; Case T-50/00 Dalmine v Commission [2004] ECR II-2395, LawLex200500004777JBJ: for agreements amounting to cartels.

Commission Decision No 97/123/EC of 4 December 1996, Novalliance/Systemform, LawLex200500004768JBJ.

Commission Decision No 74/634 of 29 November 1974, Franco-Japanese ballbearings agreement, LawLex200400003282JBJ; Case T-141/89 Trefileurope v Commission [1995] ECR II-791, LawLex200400003654JBJ; Case T-143/89 Ferriere Nord v Commission [1995] ECR II-917, LawLex200400003650JBJ: intention to align, in particular penetration rebates, in order to restrict imports; Case T-144/89 Cockerill Sambre v Commission [1995] ECR II-947, LawLex200400003653JBJ; Commission Decision No 97/123/EC of 4 December 1996, Novalliance/Systemform, LawLex200500004768JBJ: control by the supplier of the resale prices and discount rates applied to end-consumers; No 98/247/EC of 21 January 1998, Alloy surcharge, LawLex200500004749JBJ; Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 Krupp Thyssen Stainless v Commission [2001] ECR II-3757 LawLex200400003567JBJ; Case T-16/99 Lögstör Rör v Commission [2002] ECR II-1633, LawLex200500004886JBJ; Case T-213/00 CMA CGM and others v Commission [2003] ECR II-913, LawLex200400003543JBJ: agreement between competing shipping companies, providing not to discount from prices, rates for the charges and surcharges of a same connection; Commission Decision No 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004, Choline Chloride, LawLex200700001304JBJ; Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV, Judgment of 27 September 2012, LawLex201700001055JBJ; Case T-264/12 UTi Worldwide Inc., Judgment of 29 February 2016, LawLex201600000445JBJ: an agreement on the application of a surcharge constitutes a restriction of competition by object even if that surcharge directly relates to only one element of the final price, where it takes place on a sector with low margins.

See Case T-25/95 Cimenteries CBR (SA) v Commission [2000] ECR II-491, LawLex200400003586JBJ: for an exchange of information the purpose of which is to partition the market; Commission Decision No 2001/791/EC of 8 May 2001, Glaxo Wellcome (SA), Aseprofar et Fedifar, Spain Pharma, EAEPC, LawLex200400002669JBJ; No 2002/759/EC of 5 December 2001, Luxembourg Brewers, LawLex200400003555JBJ; No 2004/206/EC of 17 December 2002, Flood flavour enhancers, LawLex200400003526JBJ; Case T-30/05 Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission [2007] ECR II-107; Case T-208/13 Portugal Telecom SGPS SATUE, Judgment of 28 June 2016, LawLex201700001128JBJ and T-216/13 Telefónica SA, Judgment of 28 June 2016, LawLex201700001270JBJ, upheld in Case C-487/16 P Telefónica SA, Judgment of 13 December 2017, not available in English, holding that an agreement for the sharing of markets in the form of a non-compete clause constitutes a restriction by object; Case T-470/13 Merck KGaA, Judgment of 8 September 2016, LawLex201600001399JBJ, which specifies that  "pay for delay" agreements purporting to exclude generic drug producers from the market, constitute an extreme form of agreement for the allocation of markets and limitation of output and that Article 101 TFEU does not prohibit all amicable agreements which provide for reversed payments, but only those which require disproportionate payments in conjunction with other restrictions the purpose of which is to guarantee to one party that the other will not enter the market.

Even though the result - an automatic prohibtiion of the conduct - is similar, the method is different: the US per se prohibition, which is an example of the application of the rule of reason, gives rise to the presumption of an unfavorable assessment, whereas a classification of restriction by object constitutes a prerequisite which triggers an adverse ruling.

Commission Decision No 2006/902/EC of 21 December 2005, Rubber chemicals, LawLex200700000392JBJ; Case T-213/00 CMA CGM and others v Commission [2003] ECR II-913, LawLex200400003543JBJ. 

Commission Notice No 2014/C 291/01 of 30 August 2014.

38. Alternative condition