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(3) TFEU provides that paragraph 1 of the same may be declared inapplicable where four cumulative conditions - two positive and two negative - are met . The agreement must (i) contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, (ii) while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit (iii) without imposing on the und …

Exemption conditions

Article 101(3) TFEU provides that paragraph 1 of the same may be declared inapplicable where four cumulative conditions - two positive and two negative - are met . The agreement must (i) contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, (ii) while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit (iii) without imposing on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of those objectives and (iv) not afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

The Commission has produced guidelines relative to the application of Article 101(3) setting out a system for the application of the provision based on the economic approach introduced and developed in the guidelines on vertical restraints, on horizontal cooperation agreements, and on technology transfer agreements . The provision restates that, by virtue of Article 1 of Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002, no prior decision is necessary to proceed to a finding of the inapplicability of Article 101(1), where all the conditions of paragraph 3 have been met .

Any undertaking wishing to benefit from the Article 101(3) exemption must provide proof that it fulfills the four cumulative conditions . According to the Commission, the positive and negative effects of an agreement can only, in principle, offset each other if they are produced on the same market . However, individual exemptions may be granted even when the beneficial consequences occur on a geographic market different than the one on which the agreement produces its effects . Further, the assessment under Article 101(3) of an ancillary restraint considered not objectively necessary for the realization of the main operation can only take account of the objective advantages resulting specifically from that restriction, not of those generated by the main operation .

The exemption is granted for a limited duration, which can be between three years  to more than ten years . The duration of the exemption depends on various factors, such as the time needed to penetrate a market , for the creation of a product , the use of a new technique , a technology transfer  or the time required to guarantee supplies , limit the harm to competition , or allow the amortization of investments in the sector in question .

See Cases 43/82 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission EEC [1984] ECR 19, LawLex200400003590JBJ; Case T-17/93 Matra Hachette v Commission [1994] ECR II-595, LawLex200500005252JBJ; Case T-29/92 SPO and others v Commission [1995] ECR II-289, LawLex200400003655JBJ, Case C-137/95 SPO and others v Commission [1996] ECR I-1611, LawLex200500005120JBJ; Cases T-528/93 Métropole Télévision v Commission [1996] ECR II-649, LawLex200500003937JBJ; Case T-873/16 Groupe Canal + SA, Judgment of 12 December 2018, LawLex201900000325JBJ.

Commission Notice No 2004/C 101/08 of 27 April 2004, on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty [now 101(3) TFEU].

Commission Decision No 86/405/EEC of 14 July 1986, Optical fibres, LawLex200500004441JBJ; No 91/562/EEC of 18 October 1991, Eirpage, LawLex200400002469JBJ.

Commission Decision No 87/100/EEC of 17 December 1986, Mitchell Cotts/Sofiltra, LawLex200500004445JBJ; No 88/143/EEC of 22 December 1987, Rich Products/Jus-rol, LawLex200500005329JBJ.

Commission Decision No 76/248/EEC of 23 December 1975, United Reprocessors GmbH, LawLex200400002390JBJ; No 83/390/EEC of 13 July 1983, Rockwell/Iveco, LawLex200400002423JBJ; No 88/88/EEC of 22 December 1987, Olivetti/Canon, LawLex200400002448JBJ; No 94/770/EC of 6 October 1994, Pasteur Mérieux-Merck, LawLex200500004793JBJ.

Commission Decision No 73/323/EEC of 8 October 1973, Prym/Beka, LawLex200400002385JBJ; No 91/329/EEC of 30 April 1991, Scottish Nuclear, Nuclear Energy Agreement, LawLex200400002463JBJ.

Commission Decision No 2004/208/EC of 16 October 2003, ARA - ARGEV, ARO, LawLex200500004535JBJ, No 88/87/EEC of 22 December 1987, Enichem/ICI, LawLex200500004461JBJ.

Commission Decision No 71/222/EEC of 28 May 1971, FN/CF (not available in English).

Conversely, agreements that do not fulfill the conditions of Article 101(3) TFEU are prohibited without a prior decision being necessary.

See Cases 43/82 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission EEC [1984] ECR 19, LawLex200400003590JBJ; Case C-137/95 SPO and others v Commission [1996] ECR I-1611, LawLex200500005120JBJ; Case T-66/89 Publishers Association v Commission [1992] ECR II-1995, LawLex200400003656JBJ; Case T-17/93 Matra Hachette v Commission [1994] ECR II-595, LawLex200500005252JBJ; Case T-29/92 SPO and others v Commission [1995] ECR II-289, LawLex200400003655JBJ, Cases T-528/93, Métropole Télévision v Commission [1996] ECR II-649, LawLex200500003937JBJ.

Commission Notice No 2004/C 101/08 of 27 April 2004, concerning the application of Article 81(3) EC, at pt 43 [101(3) TFEU]. Case T-131/99 Shaw and Falla v Commission [2002] ECR II-2023, LawLex200500004881JBJ. Also see Case C-382/12 P MasterCard Inc, Judgment of 11 September 2014, LawLex201400000892JBJ, holding that where a practice produces restrictive effects on only one market of a two-sided system, the advantages flowing from it on a separate but connected market also associated with that system cannot, in themselves, be of such a character as to compensate for the disadvantages within the meaning of Article 101(3) TFEU.

See Case C-360/92 P Publishers Association v Commission [1995] ECR I-23, LawLex200500005143JBJ.

Case C-382/12 P MasterCard Inc., cited above.

Commission Decision No 83/672/EEC of 21 December 1983, SABA's EEC distribution system, LawLex200500004100JBJ, agreement exempt for 8 years; No 88/87/EEC of 22 December 1987, Enichem/ICI, LawLex200500004461JBJ, joint venture benefiting from five-year exemption; No 1999/421/EC of 26 January 1999, P&O Stena Line, LawLex200400002619JBJ, No 1999/242/EC of 3 March 1999, TPS, LawLex200500004734JBJ.

Commission Decision No 94/894/EC of 13 December 1994, Eurotunnel, LawLex200500004796JBJ CE: exemption of a joint venture formed between several competing railway companies for the construction of the Channel Tunnel for a period of 30 years.

Commission Decision No 1999/242/EC of 3 March 1999, TPS, LawLex200500004734JBJ.

European Competition Law

70. Exemption conditions

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Sous parties

Les notions juridiques connexes

70. Exemption conditions

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Sous parties

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise