The Commission is currently actively pursuing abuses of dominance, with an emphasis on behaviour in the digital market. More recently, the Commission fined Google in three separate cases and investigated Facebook, Apple and Amazon. Please explain any formal notification procedure for agreements with vertical restrictions to the cartel enforcement and abuse of dominance authority. Under what circumstances do the cartel and abuse of dominance rules apply to agreements between agents and key agreements in which a company agrees to provide certain services on behalf of a supplier in exchange for a commission payment on the basis of sale? The Commission is clearly focusing on digital markets. This is reflected both in terms of vertical agreements, where e-commerce was a priority, and in terms of dominance, where technology companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are or have been studied. 2.1 At a high level, what is the concern and control of vertical agreements? The only authorized form of resale price control under vertical agreements is therefore the seller`s ability to limit the resale price. Any restriction on the buyer`s ability to reduce the resale price (for example. B in the form of discounts or discounts) would be prohibited from the outset. How often do agreements and abuse of dominance rules apply to vertical restrictions by the cartel enforcement and abuse of dominance rules? What are the main priorities for vertical restrictions? On 8 September, the European Commission (EC) published a working paper from the Commission`s services summarising the results of its assessment of the Vertical Category Exemption Regulation (VBER) and accompanying vertical guidelines. The results show that the VBER and the guidelines are useful instruments for companies to assess their own compliance with EU competition law. However, since the introduction of the VBER and the guidelines in 2010, the market has changed significantly, due in part to growth in online revenue, the increased role of online platforms and changes in distribution models.
As a result, the EC`s assessment highlighted a number of problems with the VBER and the guidelines to be addressed. Below are the main themes identified and the likely priority areas for the EC at the beginning of the next phase of its review. As a general rule, the legal assessment of vertical restrictions is not affected by the fact that they are widely used by dener in the market. Although the Russian Civil Code contained the concept of “commercial use” as a complementary legal source (i.e. in the absence of legal or regulatory provisions), it expressly opposes the applicability of commercial uses contrary to the explicit requirements of the law. The existence of common behaviour can therefore only be invoked as a defence if it is not contrary to the prohibition of competition law; in other words, if there is no legal basis for a challenge under this act. We are not aware of cases where dependence on dominant business practices has helped to address a challenge in terms of cartels and abuse of dominance. Vertical pricing (RPM) is considered an essential restriction in Regulation 330/2010 (Article 4, point a). The basic restriction applies to fixed or minimum pricing, but does not stand in the way of price recommendations and the introduction of (real) maximum prices. The vertical guidelines (No. 223 and below) do not exclude that vertical pricing may benefit from an individual exemption under Article 101, paragraph 3, of the TFUE. However, the exception is closely described.
3.8 What are the defences that claim that a company is abusing its dominant position or market power? 3.3 What analytical framework does the definition of a dominant business market offer? Competition law provides for a very broad definition of agreements, including all agreements