Background

Economic theory of vertical restraints

Economic theory and competition law

Should distributors have more protection?

Vertical restraints put to the test of economic analysis

Structure of distribution law - Book plan

General bibliography

Introduction

Localizing the anticompetitive effects

Effect on trade between Member States

Scope ratione loci

Concept of an undertaking

Intra-group agreements

Scope ratione personae

Applicability of competition law to vertical agreements

Definition of the relevant market

Anticompetitive object or effect

Appreciability threshold

Concept of agreement and concerted practice

Prohibition of vertical restraints

Block exemptions

Individual exemptions and rule of reason

Exemption of vertical restraints

Control of vertical restraints

Prohibition

Exoneration

Restrictive agreements

Principle

Applications

Abuse of dominant position

Exclusive purchase/Exclusive supply

Resale outside network

International agreement

Exclusive distribution agreements

Manufacturer's guarantee

Protection of the brand

Protecting the network against third parties

Relations between the parties

Selective distribution

Hardcore restrictions

Individual exemptions

Rule of reason

Prohibition of restrictive agreements and individual exemptions

Distribution of new motor vehicles : Regulation No 330/2010

After-sales : Regulation No 461/2010

Block exemption

Motor vehicle distribution agreements

Merger control

Franchising

Commercial agency and competition

EU harmonization

International agency

Commercial agents

This book provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to distribution: exclusive purchase and exclusive supply, exclusive and selective distribution, motor vehicle distribution, franchises, commercial agents.

European Distribution Law

The adoption of a regulation on vertical restraints, which puts in place an automatic exemption mechanism below the 30% market share threshold in theory makes recourse to the rule of reason pointless in cases where the agreement falls within its scope. Where this is not the case, the lawfulness of certain obligations remains subject to their necessity for the protection of the network. Rules devel …

The adoption of a regulation on vertical restraints, which puts in place an automatic exemption mechanism below the 30% market share threshold in theory makes recourse to the rule of reason pointless in cases where the agreement falls within its scope. Where this is not the case, the lawfulness of certain obligations remains subject to their necessity for the protection of the network. Rules developed through the EU case law on exclusive supply or post-contractual non-compete obligations retain their influence within this context.

In assessing a franchise agreement in the light of a rule of reason, the Court of Justice laid down the principle by which obligations that are inherent to franchise agreements, although likely to harm competition, are not contrary to Article 101(1) TFEU . The compatible nature of franchise agreements must be assessed in concrete terms according to the clauses written into them and the economic context into which they fall where they are necessary to the protection of the know-how transferred or to maintain the common identity and reputation of the network. This is also the case for exclusive purchase clauses , intended to maintain the identity and reputation of the network  or for non-compete clauses , the duration of which must however be proportionate to the objective of protection of know-how .

Case 161/84 Pronuptia [1986] ECR 353, LawLex200500004110JBJ.

Commission Decision No 89/94 of 2 December 1988, Charles Jourdan, LawLex200500004474JBJ. See also Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, at pt 148.

Commission Decisions No 87/14 of 17 December 1986, Yves Rocher, LawLex200500004449JBJ; No 87/407 of 13 July 1987, Computerland, LawLex200400002440JBJ.

Commission Decisions No 87/14 of 17 December 1986, Yves Rocher, LawLex200500004449JBJ; No 88/604 of 14 November 1988, ServiceMaster, LawLex200500005332JBJ.

Case 161/84 Pronuptia [1986] ECR 353, LawLex200500004110JBJ; Commission Decision No 87/14 of 17 December 1986, Yves Rocher, LawLex200500004449JBJ.

European Distribution Law

99. Rule of reason

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

99. Rule of reason

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

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