Internet Sales Under the New Vertical Agreements Block Exemption
Internet sales under the new EU Vertical Agreements Block Exemption - What is new and what remains the same?
Table of contents:
1. The Vertical Agreements Block Exemption 1
1.1 A New Regulation 1
1.2 Internet sales under the Old Guidelines 2
1.2.1 Internet sales were passive sales 2
1.2.2 Certain selection criteria were allowed 3
1.2.3 Objective justification criteria 4
1.2.4 Quality Standards 4
1.3 What is new? 5
1.3.1 Market threshold 5
1.3.2 Hardcore restrictions 6
1.3.3 Changes relevant to online sales 6
1.4 Observations 8
2. Analysis 9
2.1 Background 9
2.2 General issues 10
2.3 The Commissions aim and specific Distribution Networks 12
2.3.1 Issues for selective distribution networks 12
2.3.2 A Balance for Pure Internet Resellers? 16
2.3.3 Exclusive Distribution 17
2.4 Concluding Remarks 19
Bibliography: 21
The Vertical Agreements Block Exemption
1. A New Regulation
The European Commission (‘Commission’) adopted on April 20, 2010 Regulation No 330/2010 (‘New Regulation’); this document enumerates a number of conditions that need to be met by vertical agreements to be exempt from the prohibition on anticompetitive agreements set out in Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), (formerly known as Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty). In addition, the Commission also adopted a new set of guidelines created to assist legal practitioners and users in the assessment of compatibility required by Article 101 TFEU regarding vertical agreements (‘New Guidelines’). Both norms will be valid for a period of twelve years, replacing as of June 1, 2010, the previous regulation (‘Old Regulation’) and previous guidelines on vertical restraints (‘Old Guidelines’). Together, these rules provide a safe harbour for those vertical agreements that fall within their framework. In other words it could be said, that the Agreements drafted within the Block Exemption’s framework will not cause (from
Table of contents:
1. The Vertical Agreements Block Exemption 1
1.1 A New Regulation 1
1.2 Internet sales under the Old Guidelines 2
1.2.1 Internet sales were passive sales 2
1.2.2 Certain selection criteria were allowed 3
1.2.3 Objective justification criteria 4
1.2.4 Quality Standards 4
1.3 What is new? 5
1.3.1 Market threshold 5
1.3.2 Hardcore restrictions 6
1.3.3 Changes relevant to online sales 6
1.4 Observations 8
2. Analysis 9
2.1 Background 9
2.2 General issues 10
2.3 The Commissions aim and specific Distribution Networks 12
2.3.1 Issues for selective distribution networks 12
2.3.2 A Balance for Pure Internet Resellers? 16
2.3.3 Exclusive Distribution 17
2.4 Concluding Remarks 19
Bibliography: 21
The Vertical Agreements Block Exemption
1. A New Regulation
The European Commission (‘Commission’) adopted on April 20, 2010 Regulation No 330/2010 (‘New Regulation’); this document enumerates a number of conditions that need to be met by vertical agreements to be exempt from the prohibition on anticompetitive agreements set out in Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), (formerly known as Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty). In addition, the Commission also adopted a new set of guidelines created to assist legal practitioners and users in the assessment of compatibility required by Article 101 TFEU regarding vertical agreements (‘New Guidelines’). Both norms will be valid for a period of twelve years, replacing as of June 1, 2010, the previous regulation (‘Old Regulation’) and previous guidelines on vertical restraints (‘Old Guidelines’). Together, these rules provide a safe harbour for those vertical agreements that fall within their framework. In other words it could be said, that the Agreements drafted within the Block Exemption’s framework will not cause (from
Bibliography: Books • Bishop and Walker, The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts Application and Measurement, (Sweet & Maxwell, 2009) • Dabbah, EC and UK Competition Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2004) • Goyder and Albors-Llorens, Goyder’s EC Competition Law, (Oxford University Press, 2009) • Horspool and Humphreys, European Union Law5th ed., (Oxford University Press; 2009) • Jones and Sufrin, EU Competition Law: Text, Cases & Materials: Text, Cases and Materials 3rd Ed., (Oxford University Press, 2009) • Rodger and MAcCulloch, Competition Law and Policy in the EC and UK 4th Ed, Routledge-Cavendish, 2008) • Slot and Johnston, An Introduction to Comptetition Law, (Hart Publishing, 2006) • Whish, Competition Law 6th Ed, (Oxford University Press, 2008) Journal Articles • Wijckmans, Tuytschaever, Active sales restrictions revisited, European Competition Law Review, 2004, 25(2) Internet Sources http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2009_vertical_agreements/ (last visited 13 October 2010) Table of Cases • Commission decision of 16.7.2003 in Case COMP/37.975 PO/Yamaha, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_75.html#i37_995 (last visited 13 October 2010) • Case T-19/91 Vichy v Commission [1992] ECR II-415 • Conseil de la Concurrence Decision N° 06-D-24 of 24 July 2006 Available at: http://www.conseil-concurrence.fr/pdf/avis/06d24.pdf (last visited 13 October 2010) • Copad SA v Christian Dior Couture SA (C-59/08) [2009] Bus. L.R. 1571. ----------------------- [1]Commission’s press release IP/00/1418, of 6.12.2000, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/00/1418 (last visited 13 October 2010). [4] Commission’s press release IP/01/713, of 17.5.2001, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/01/713 (last visited 13 October 2010) [5] Goyder and Albors-Llorens, EC Competition Law, p.241 [8] Commission memo 138 of 20.04.2010 available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/138 (last visited 13 October 2010) [9] New Guidelines paragraph 52. [28] Ebay, response to consultation process, p.10 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2009_vertical_agreements/ (last visited 13 October 2010) [29] Case T-19/91 Vichy v Commission [1992] ECR II-415, para 71.