Category : Uncategorised
On 24 September 2020, the UK Competition and Market Supervisory Authority (CMA) amended its leniency guidelines so that companies seeking leniency disclosure after an investigation into the taxed pricing system (RPM) should only expect a fine of up to 50%. Previously, the (…) Following an investigation launched in 2016, the Commission adopted a decision imposing fines totalling 260 million euros on three companies in a relatively unusual market and cartel context. Buyers of ethylene generally purchase ethylene through delivery contracts and as a purchase price of (…) As far as legal assessment is concerned, the judgment is consistent with the case law recently introduced. Swiss competition law has been applied despite the application and application of contractual clauses in Germany. According to ComCo, the export ban clauses have had “potential effects” on competition in Switzerland, without carrying out a more extensive assessment of this alleged link with Switzerland. Although this simple approach has not yet succeeded in convincing all legal experts, it corresponds to the latest decisions of BMW (2) and Nikon (3) (for more details, see “International Distribution Systems under fire”). In its subsequent assessment, ComCo characterized the non-export clause as a territorial allocation with absolute protection of the territory. The statutory presumption of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Federal Agreements and Other Competition Restrictions Act – that such absolute territorial protection excludes effective competition – was repealed because the company concerned was not the sole supplier of these medical devices in Switzerland. ComCo found, however, that the non-export clause was considered a significant restriction on competition, as territorial safeguard clauses are considered to be of high quality. Therefore, they are generally considered to have a significant anti-competitive effect, regardless of their quantitative effects (for more details, see “Landmark Decision: Stricter Rules for Licensing and Distribution Agreements”). In the context of another recent decision (4), this argument was expected despite persistent criticism from legal experts.