Get in touch with the authors !
Home > Competition Law > Antitrust Encyclopedia > Select a question
“What is the relevant legislation dealing with anticompetitive practices? What is the main wording?”
Select a question
or a country
Multiple country/questionThe answers for all countries
Austria-
The Austrian Cartel Act 2005, which entered into force on 1 January 2006, implemented regulation No 1/2003 in the Austrian legal system. As a consequence, the legislation dealing with anti-competitive practices (sec 1 and 2 of the Austrian Cartel Act 2005) has a wording which is mainly identical to Article 81 EC. However, in some areas, Austrian law is more specific than EC law.
Stephan Polster, Dorda Brugger Jordis (Vienna), Antitrust encyclopedia: Austria, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 137 Article..: 19325
Belgium-
Competition law in Belgium is governed by the Act on the Protection of Economic Competition (APEC) which entered into force on 1 October 2006. The Competition Act has been supplemented by a number of implementing Royal Decrees such as (i) the Royal Decree of 14 December 2006 on the status of the members of the Registry of the Competition Council; (ii) Royal Decree of 31 October 2006 on the procedures with regard to the protection of economic competition; (iii) Royal Decree of 31 October 2006 on the notification of concentrations of undertakings in the sense of Article 9 of the Competition Act; (iv) Royal Decree of 31 October 2006 on the submission of complaints and requests under Article 44, § 1, 2nd and 3rd of the Competition Act; (v) Royal Decree of 31 October 2006 on the delivery of copies of the file, as meant in the Competition Act 2006; (vi) Royal Decree of 31 October 2006 on the payment and collection of administrative fines and penalty payments;(vii) Ministerial Decree of 31 October 2006 on the transmission of the file from the Competition Council to the Brussels Court of Appeals; (viii) Ministerial Decree of 31 October 2006 on the transmission of the file from a sector regulator to the Competition Council. The Competition Act is closely modelled on the corresponding provisions of the EC Treaty (i.e. Article 81 EC and Article 82EC). It prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition on the Belgian market or a substantial part thereof. As is the case with Article 81 of the EC Treaty for an infringement to exist, the restrictive effect must be “appreciable”. Belgian courts generally apply the European Commission’s de minimis Notice to verify whether the effect on competition is appreciable. The prohibition on restrictive practices does not apply to agreements which benefit from a block exemption issued by the EU Council or by the European Commission (or which would have benefited from such an exemption if the agreement had had an effect on trade between EU Member States). Moreover, the Competition Act provides for the possibility of the Belgian government issuing its own block exemptions. No such “national” block exemptions have been adopted to date. As is the case with Article 81 EC, the prohibition on restrictive practices is subject to certain exemptions. Companies need to “self-assess” whether their agreements fulfil all conditions set out for such exemptions to apply. Individual exemptions granted under the old law remain valid. Until the expiry of the period for which such an exemption has been granted, the Competition Council may nevertheless revoke the exemption, for example, if an exemption is being abused by its beneficiary, or if the beneficiary breaches a condition attached to the exemption. The Competition Act also prohibits abuses by one or more undertakings of a dominant position on the Belgian market or a substantial part thereof. Infringements of these prohibitions may give rise to the imposition of administrative fines and periodic penalty payments on undertakings and associations of undertakings.
Geert A. Zonnekeyn, Monard D’Hulst (Kortrijk), Antitrust encyclopedia: Belgium, February 2009
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 6 Article..: 18800
Bulgaria-
The relevant legislation regulating anticompetitive practices is introduced in the PCA (Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) under a separate chapter named Forbidden Agreements, Decisions and Concerted Practices. Articles 9 to 15 of PCA include the applicable rules in this regard.
Petko Georgiev Nikolov, Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition (Sofia), Antitrust encyclopedia: Bulgaria, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 339 Article..: 15992
Croatia-
Articles 9 and 10 Competition Act 2003 generally correspond to Article 81 EC. Also relevant are Block Exemption Regulations for horizontal (Official Gazette 158/2004) and vertical agreements (Official Gazette 51/2004), technology transfer agreements (Official Gazette 2/2005), insurance agreements (54/2005), and distribution and servicing of motor vehicles (Official Gazette 105/2004). Also, there is a separate Regulation on de minimis agreements (Official Gazette 51/2004);
Pursuant to the new Competition Act 2010, in force as of October 1, 2010, provisions on restrictive agreements have been somewhat reshuffled (Article 8) and the wording more closely modelled on Article 81 EC.
J. Pecotić Kaufman, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business, Antitrust encyclopedia: Croatia, July 2009
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 698 Article..: 28106
Cyprus-
The Protection of Competition Law 2008 deals with anticompetitive practices.
See: Antigoni Lykotrafiti, The Cyprus Competition Authority fines the telecommunications incumbent and a subscriber channel for a restrictive cooperation agreement on the DSL market (CYTA/LTV), 4 August 2006, e-Competitions,www.concurrences.com.Costakis Christoforou, Cyprus Commission for Protection of Competition (Nycosia), Antitrust encyclopedia: Cyprus, November 2007Question.: 517 Pays.....: 7 Article..: 16266
Czech Republic-
Articles 3 through 9 of the Competition Act deal with anticompetitive practices. The main principles are set in Section 3 - Article 3 which states:
(1) All agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices (hereinafter referred to as “agreements”) which result or may result in the distortion of competition shall be prohibited and null and void unless this Act or a special act provides otherwise, or unless the Office for the Protection of Competition (hereinafter referred to as “the Office”) grants an exemption from this prohibition by its implementing regulation.
(2) Prohibited within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be, in particular, agreements that result or may result in the distortion of competition due to the fact that they contain provisions on:
a) direct or indirect fixing of prices or other business terms and conditions,
b) limitation or control of production, sales, research and development or investments,
c) division of markets or sources of supply,
d) making the conclusion of a contract subject to acceptance of further performance, which by its nature or according to commercial usage and fair business practices, has no connection with the object of such contracts,
e) application of dissimilar conditions to identical or equivalent transactions with other undertakings, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage,
f) obligation of the parties to the agreement to refrain from trading or other economic co-operation with undertakings not being party to the agreement, or to otherwise harm such undertakings (group boycott).
(3) If the reason for prohibition relates only to a part of the agreement, only that particular part thereof shall be prohibited and null and void. Provided that it may be inferred from the nature, contents or purpose of the agreement, or the circumstances in which the agreement was concluded, that such part may not be severed from its remaining content, the whole such agreement shall be prohibited and null and void.
(4) The prohibition pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not apply to agreements that
a) contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit,
b) do not impose on the undertakings restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of the objectives pursuant to letter a),
c) do not afford the undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the market of goods, the supply or purchase of which constitutes the object of the agreement.
Vladimira Glatzova, Glatzova & Co (Prague), Antitrust encyclopedia: Czech Republic, November 2007Question.: 517 Pays.....: 8 Article..: 16515
Denmark-
Anticompetitive practices are covered by sections 6 and 8 of the Competition Act (Consolidated Act no. 785 of 8 August 2005 as amended by act no. 572 of 6 June 2007). The wording is the same as in article 81 of the EC.
Camilla Jain Holtse, Bech Bruun (Aarhus), Christian Nielsen, Bech Bruun (Aarhus), Antitrust encyclopedia: Denmark, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 9 Article..: 16722
Estonia-
The main legal provision dealing with anticompetitive practices is Article 4(1) of the Competition Act (konkurentsiseadus, “CA”): “§ 4. Prohibition on agreements, concerted practices and decisions by associations of undertakings which restrict competition: (1) The following are prohibited: agreements between undertakings, concerted practices, and decisions by associations of undertakings (hereinafter agreements, practices and decisions) which have as their object or effect the restriction of competition, including those which: 1) directly or indirectly fix prices or any other trading conditions, including prices of goods, tariffs, fees, mark-ups, discounts, rebates, basic fees, premiums, additional fees, interest rates, rent or lease payments applicable to third parties; 2) limit production, service, goods markets, technical development or investment; 3) share goods markets or sources of supply, including restriction of access by a third party to a goods market or any attempt to exclude the person from the market; 4) exchange information which restricts competition; 5) agree on the application of dissimilar conditions to equivalent agreements, thereby placing other trading parties at a competitive disadvantage; 6) make entry into an agreement subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which have no connection with the subject of such agreement.”
Tanel Kalaus, Raidla & Partners (Tallinn), Antitrust encyclopedia: Estonia, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 89 Article..: 16977
Finland-
The relevant legislation is the Act on Restrictions on Competition (480/1992, as amended) (“Competition Act”). On 1 May 2004 the latest reform of the Competition Act was implemented, which also amended provisions regarding anticompetitive practices. The substantial provisions related to anticompetitive practices are Section 4 of the Competition Act and Section 5 of the Competition Act. Sections 4 and 5 correspond to Article 81 of the EC Treaty.
Katri Joenpolvi, Krogerus (Helsinki), Antitrust encyclopedia: Finland, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 33 Article..: 18746
France-
In this section, anticompetitive practices refer to agreements and concerted practices prohibited by Article L.420-1 Commercial Code, the French equivalent to Article 81 of the EC Treaty. Article L.420-1 prohibits agreements that have the object or potential effect of an appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in France. Article L. 420-1 Commercial Code reads as follows: “Common actions, agreements, express or tacit undertakings or coalitions, particularly where they are intended to: (i) limit access to the market or the free exercise of competition by others; (ii) prevent price fixing by the free play of the market by artificially encouraging the increase or reduction of prices; (iii) limit or control production, opportunities, investments or technical progress; (iv) share out the markets or sources of supply, shall be prohibited when they are aimed at or may have the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting the free play of competition in a market”. (translation by www.legifrance.gouv.fr). The Article L.420-1 Commercial Code prohibition applies to horizontal agreements (agreements between competitors) and to vertical agreements (agreements between independent entities that operate at different economic levels). The Competition Council takes into account European Commission Regulation 2790/1999 which is applicable to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices and the European Commission Notice Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ C 291 of 13 October 2000, pp. 1-44. According to Article L. 420-3 Commercial Code, any “undertaking, agreement or contractual clause infringing” Article L. 420-1 Commercial Code is void (see, similarly for Art. 81.2 EC, for ex. (Juliette Goyer, Lauriane Lépine, A French Court of Appeal annuls a commissioning agreement for violation of Art. 81 EC (SAS Prim’Co ), e-Competitions, Dec. 2007-I). The Competition Council can impose fines upon the infringing party(ies). However, contrary to the courts, the Competition Council can neither declare a contract void, nor grant damages to recover the losses incurred as a result of anticompetitive practices.
Christophe Clarenc, Latham & Watkins (Paris), Frédéric Pradelles, Latham & Watkins (Paris), Antitrust encyclopedia: France, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 10 Article..: 15600
Germany-
The principal legislation is the Act against Restraints of Competition (“ARC”); the German title of the Act is “Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen” or “GWB”, re-enacted 15th July 2005 (OJ [BGBl.] 2005 I 2114), as amended by the Act of 18th December 2007 (OJ [BGBl.] 2007 I 2966).
The central provision for horizontal and vertical restraints is § 1 of the Act against Restraints of Competition (“ARC”): “Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices, which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, are prohibited.”
Additionally, the Criminal Code (“StGB”) contains a provision on bid rigging (§ 298 StGB).
Florian Wagner-von Papp, University College (London), Antitrust encyclopedia: Germany, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 11 Article..: 17436
Greece-
Article 1(1) of Law 703/1977 prohibits anticompetitive practices. Article 1 of Law 703/1977 replicates Article 81 of the European Community Treaty.
Yannis Stamoulis, Coca-Cola (Athens), Antitrust encyclopedia: Greece, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 90 Article..: 17165
Hungary-
It is the Hungarian Competition Act (Hungarian Competition Act) which deals with the prohibition of agreements restricting economic competition.
The Hungarian Competition Act identifies the following as agreements:
A) agreement between undertakings;
B) concerted practice;
C) decision by social organisations of undertakings, public corporations, associations or other similar organisations.
Article 11(1) of the Hungarian Competition Act: “Agreements or concerted practices between undertakings and decisions by social organisations of undertakings, public corporations, associations or other similar organisations (hereinafter together: agreements), which have as their object or potential or actual effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, shall be prohibited. Agreements concluded between undertakings, which are not independent of each other do not qualify as such kind of agreements.” Article 11(2) of the Hungarian Competition Act: “This prohibition applies, in particular, to a) the direct or indirect fixing of purchase or selling prices or other business terms and conditions; b) the limitation or control of production, distribution, technical development or investment; c) the allocation of sources of supply, or the restriction of their choice as well as the exclusion of a specified group of consumers from purchasing certain goods; d) the allocation of markets, exclusion from sales, or restriction of the choice of marketing possibilities; e) [Repealed by Act LXVIII of 2005] f) the hindering of market entry; g) cases, where, given transactions of the same value or character, there is discrimination between trading parties, including the application of prices, periods of payment, discriminatory selling or purchase terms and conditions or methods placing certain trading parties at a competitive disadvantage; h) making the conclusion of contracts subject to the acceptance of obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage do not belong to the subject of such contracts.Bálint Bassola, Hungarian Competition Authority (Budapest), Antitrust encyclopedia: Hungary, November 2007Question.: 517 Pays.....: 13 Article..: 18610
Ireland-
The Competition Act 2002 (as amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act 1996, and again by the Communications Regulation (Amendment Act) 2007 defines the principles of competition law in Ireland. A competition law prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices and the abuse of a dominant position was first enacted in Ireland in 1991. This statutory provision was subsequently amended in 1996. In 2002, new legislation was enacted, and the 1991 and 1996 Acts were repealed. The Competition Act 2002 was amended in 2006 (see: Orla Lynskey, Publication of the Amendment to the Irish Competition Bill 2005: Substantial modifications in the grocery trade regime, 12 December 2005, e-Competitions, N°399, www.concurrences.com)
and again in 2007, as stated above. Its substantive prohibitions are equivalent to those contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty of Rome and have remained the same in all fundamental respects since 1991. However, the 2006 Amendment Act introduced new prohibitions against unilateral conduct by non-dominant undertakings in the market for grocery goods.
Since 1991, the Competition Authority’s role and functions have increased significantly with the Competition (Amendment) Act 1996 giving enforcement powers to the Authority for the first time. This power had previously been exercised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is important to note that by enforcing the provisions of sections 4 and 5 in particular,
the Competition Authority
is not a decision-maker. The power to conclude that a breach of the Act’s provisions or and infringement of the Treaty has occurred is a function of the Court alone. Where, on foot of an investigation,
the Competition Authority
considers that a breach or an infringement has occurred; it may institute civil proceedings as a plaintiff against the parties in question or may prosecute criminal offences in the lowest court (the District Court).. In the context of criminal prosecution of serious offences, the DPP acts as prosecutor.
An additional enforcement function, that of merger control, was transferred to the
Competition Authority
from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the 2002 Act. By enforcing the provisions of Part III of the Act, the
Competition Authority
is a decision-maker with the power to clear a merger, refuse to allow a merger or allow a merger subject to conditions. The relevant test is whether the result of the merger will be to substantially lessen competition in the relevant market(s).
The Competition Act 2002 and the Competition (Amendment) Act 2006 can be downloaded from the Competition Authority website at the following link. The Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2004 can be found here.
The long title to the Competition Act 2002 describes the Act as: “An act to make new provision, by analogy with Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty establishing the European community, and in the interests of the common good, for the prohibition of activities which prevent, restrict or distort competition in trade in the State or which constitute an abuse of a dominant position in such trade, to complement the powers available to the Commission of the European communities with regard to the enforcement of the said Articles 81 and 82, [...].” (Emphasis added)
Activities which “prevent, restrict or distort competition in trade in the State or which constitute an abuse of a dominant position” are described in Section 4 and Section 5 of the Competition Act 2002 which mirrors Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. Section 1 of the Competition (Amendment) Act 2006 inserts a new Part 2A into the 2002 Act. This new Part contains provisions regulating the grocery trade sector.
Section 4 provides that: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services in the State or in any part of the State are prohibited and void, including in particular, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, those which- (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions, (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment, (c) share markets or sources of supply, (d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage, (e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which by their nature or according to commercial usage have no connection with the subject of such contracts.”
Section 5 provides that: “(1) Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position in trade for any goods or services in the State or in any part of the State is prohibited. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), such abuse may, in particular, consist in- (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions, (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers, (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage, (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to the acceptance by other parties of supplementary obligations which by their nature or according to commercial usage have no connection with the subject of such contracts.”
Section 15B of the Competition Act 2002 (as inserted by the Competition (Amendment) Act 2006) provides that: “(1) Subject to subsection (5), a grocery goods undertaking shall not directly or indirectly attempt to compel or coerce another grocery goods undertaking, whether by threat, promise or any like means, to resell or advertise for resale any grocery goods at- (a) a price fixed directly or indirectly by the first mentioned grocery goods undertaking, or (b) a price above a minimum price fixed directly or indirectly by the first mentioned grocery goods undertaking.
(2) Subject to subsection (5), a grocery goods undertaking shall not apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with any other grocery goods undertaking. (3) Subject to subsection (5), a grocery goods undertaking shall not directly or indirectly compel or coerce, whether by threat, promise or any like means, another grocery goods undertaking to make any payment or grant any allowance for the advertising or display of grocery goods. (4) Subject to subsection (5) and without limiting the generality of subsection (3), a retailer shall not directly or indirectly compel or coerce, whether by threat, promise or any like means, another grocery goods undertaking to make any payment or grant any allowance to the retailer in consideration of any of the following matters:
(a) providing space for grocery goods within a new retail outlet on or within the first 60 days after its opening to the public; (b) providing space for grocery goods within a newly expanded or extended retail outlet on or within the first 60 days after the opening to the public of the expanded or extended part of the outlet; (c) providing space for grocery goods within a retail outlet on or within the first 60 days after its opening to the public under new ownership.
(5) Conduct described in subsections (1) to (4) shall not be prohibited unless it has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in any grocery goods in the State or in any part of the State.William Prasifka, Irish Competition Authority (Dublin), Antitrust encyclopedia: Ireland, November 2007Question.: 517 Pays.....: 14 Article..: 17453
Italy-
Article 2 of the Law provides for the prohibition of agreements, concerted practices and decisions of associations of undertakings, which have as their object or effect to appreciably prevent, restrict or distort competition within the national market or a substantial part thereof. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 provides a (non-exhaustive) list of anticompetitive agreements. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the same Law, restrictive practices coming within the scope of Article 2 are null and void.
Enrico Adriano Raffaelli, Rucellai & Raffaelli (Milano), David Ottolenghi, Rucellai & Raffaelli (Milano), Antitrust encyclopedia: Italy, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 15 Article..: 17909
Latvia-
The Competition Law is the principal legislation on competition regulation and enforcement in Latvia. The Latvian competition rules serve four primary objectives which are the regulation of restricted agreements and practices (Articles 11 and 12); prohibition of the abuse of a dominant position (Articles 13 and 14); control of mergers and acquisitions (Articles 15 to 17); and prohibition of unfair competition (Articles 18 and 19).
The Competition Law establishes only the general rules regarding agreements and practices that may restrict competition. More detailed procedures for the application of various provisions of the Competition Law were left to be provided by supplemental regulations issued by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Mikus Buls, University College (London), Antitrust encyclopedia: Latvia, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 91 Article..: 18289
Lithuania-
Article 5 of the Law on Competition of the 23 March 1999 states that all agreements which have as their object or effect the restriction of competition or which may restrict competition are prohibited and void from the moment of their conclusion.
Šarūnas Keserauskas, Office of fair trading, Antitrust encyclopedia: Lithuania, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 92 Article..: 18124
Luxembourg-
Anticompetitive practices are regulated by Articles 3 and 4 of the Law on Competition of 17 May 2004 (the "2004 Law"), as amended by the Law of 11 March 2008 modifying the law of 17 May 2004 on Competition, and by the Law of 23 April 2008 relating to search for and sanction of violations of consumers’ rights, which, in the same words as article 81 of the EC Treaty (except the reference to trade between Member States), prohibits agreements which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.
Myriam Pierrat, Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen (Luxembourg), Antitrust encyclopedia: Luxembourg, October 2009
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 93 Article..: 16737
Malta-
Article 5(1) of the Act deals with anticompetitive practices. This Article provides as follows:
“Subject to the provisions of this Act, the following is prohibited, that is to say any agreement between undertakings, any decision by an association of undertakings and any concerted practice between undertakings having the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Malta or any part of Malta and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subarticle, any agreement, decision or practice which: a. directly or indirectly fixes the purchase or selling price or other trading conditions; or b. limits or controls production, markets, technical development or investment; or c. shares markets or sources of supply; or d. imposes the application of dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other parties outside such agreement, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; or e. makes the conclusion of contracts subject to the acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.”
Adrian Mallia, Camilleri Preziosi (Valletta), Antitrust encyclopedia: Malta, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 94 Article..: 18447
The Netherlands-
The Dutch Competition Act entered into force on 1 January 1998 and is modelled closely on EC competition law. The cartel prohibition contained in the Competition Act is a copy of Article 81 of the EC Treaty, excluding the effect on inter-state trade criterion. Article 6 of the Competition Act prohibits agreements, decisions and concerted practices if they have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition on the whole or a part of the Dutch market. The prohibition covers all types of behaviour, horizontal or vertical, irrespective of whether they are based on formal, oral or tacit agreements or concerted practices. As is the case for EC competition law, agreements restricting competition are only prohibited if they have an appreciable effect on competition. As noted above, Article 81 EC also forms part of the substantive law on cartels in the jurisdiction, having direct effect in relation to agreements and concerted practices affecting competition in the Netherlands where there is also an effect on inter-state trade.
Martijn Snoep, Debrauw (The Hague), Antitrust encyclopedia: The Netherlands, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 16 Article..: 19048
Poland-
Legislation dealing with anticompetitive practices is contained in the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection of 16 February 2007 (hereinafter the Act).This is the new competition law that was enacted by Parliament on 16 February, published on 21 March (Journal of Laws 2007, No. 50, item 331). It entered into force on 21 April 2007. (See the English version)
Marta Skrobisz, Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (Varsaw), Mateusz Blachucki, Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (Varsaw), Antitrust encyclopedia: Poland, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 17 Article..: 19010
Portugal-
The Portuguese Competition Act - Law 18/2003, of June 11, mainly articles 4, 5, 6 and 7. Agreements, concerted practices, decisions of associations of undertakings whose object or effect is to prevent, distort or restrict competition are prohibited, as the abuse of dominant position and the abuse of economic dependence.
Teresa Moreira, Portuguese Directorate-General for Economic Activities (Lisbon), Antitrust encyclopedia: Portugal, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 95 Article..: 17973
Romania-
The main piece of legislation dealing with anticompetitive practices is Law 21/1996, as amended and republished (“the Competition Law”), and the secondary legislation adopted herein.
Case Law: Carmen Peli, Adrian Ster, An overview of Romanian competition regime: Some substantive divergence with the EC competition legislation remain..., 1 January 2007, e-Competitions, N°13302,www.concurrences.com
Carmen Peli, Peli Filip (Bucharest), Antitrust encyclopedia: Romania, November 2007Question.: 517 Pays.....: 337 Article..: 17796
Russia-
Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the Chapter 2 “Monopolistic Activity. Unfair Competition” of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” includes provisions pertaining to prohibition and permissibility of anticompetitive agreements. The Law also includes Chapter 3. “Prohibition of Acts, Actions (Inactions), Agreements, Concerted Practices of Federal Bodies of Executive Authority, Public Authorities of the Subjects of the Russian Federation, Bodies of Local Self-Government, Other Bodies or Organizations Exercising the Functions of the Above-Mentioned Bodies, as well as Public Off-Budget Funds, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)that Restrict Competition”.
Igor Artemiev, Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (Moscow), Antitrust encyclopedia: Russia, June 2008
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 340 Article..: 18981
Serbia-
Competition law in Serbia is governed by the Competition Act which will be applied from 1 November 2009. The Act identifies the following as agreements: a) agreements between undertakings; b) concerted practices; c) decisions of associations of undertakings. Article 10 of the Competition Act states that all agreements or concerted practices between undertakings and decisions by associations of undertakings (hereinafter together: agreements), which have as their object or effect significant prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, shall be prohibited. The Competition Act contains a non-exhaustive list of types of anti-competitive behaviour: a) direct or indirect fixing of purchase or selling prices or other business terms and conditions; b) limitation or control of production, distribution, technical development or investment; c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to the acceptance of obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage have no connection with the subject of such contracts; e) sharing of markets or sources of supply.
Cases:
Dusan Popovic, The Serbian Competition Authority adopts a decision against fifteen pharmaceutical companies for fixing trade conditions (Hemofarm, Galenika, Zdravlje and others), 12 December 2008, e-Competitions, n°24235, www.concurrences.com
Alexandr Svetlicinii, The Serbian Competition Authority annulls the decision of the Serbian Association of Insurers regulating the terms of the Casco auto insurance services (Serbian Association of Insurers), 19 June 2009, e-Competitions, n°26740, www.concurrences.comDusan Popovic, University of Law (Belgrade), Antitrust encyclopedia: Serbia, December 2009Question.: 517 Pays.....: 702 Article..: 29973
Slovakia-
Anti-competitive agreements are dealt with in the Act No. 136/2001 Coll. as amended on Protection of Economic Competition (Competition Act). The following is the quote of the Competition Act regarding anticompetitive agreements:
“Article 4
(1) Agreement and concerted practice between undertakings, as well as decisions of their associations, whose objective or effect is or may be restriction of competition (hereinafter referred to as an "agreement restricting competition") are prohibited, unless this Act provides otherwise.
(2) For the purpose of this Act:
a)an agreement between undertakings means any verbal or written positive expression of the will of the parties thereto, as well as any other positive expression of will derived from their conduct;
b)a concerted practice between undertakings means any coordination of their activities that does not bear signs of an agreement between undertakings referred to in (a) and cannot be identified as the natural consequence of the actions taken by another undertaking;
c)a decision by an association of undertakings is any legal act of the association’s body, as well as a recommendation of the association’s body.
(3) There shall be prohibited, in particular, an agreement restricting competition that involves:
a)direct or indirect fixing of prices or other trade conditions;
b)commitment to limit or control production, sales, technical development, or investments;
c)division of the market or sources of supply;
d)commitment by the parties to the agreement that different conditions relating to an identical or comparable performance will be applied to individual undertakings, which will or may disadvantage these undertakings in competition;
e)conditions stipulating that the conclusion of agreements will require the parties to accept further obligations that are not related to the subject of these agreements in terms of their nature or according to customary commercial practice; or
f)signs of collusive behavior as a result of which undertakings coordinate their bids, especially in the process of public procurement.”
Axel Reidlinger, Freshfields (Vienna), Peter Oravec, Freshfields (Bratislava), Antitrust encyclopedia: Slovakia, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 96 Article..: 19199
Slovenia-
The main legislation dealing with anticompetitive practices is Article 5 (Prohibition of restrictive agreements) of the Competition Act.
Andrej Fatur, King’s College (London), Antitrust encyclopedia: Slovenia, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 97 Article..: 17645
Spain-
Both prohibitions (anticompetitive conduct and abuses of dominant position are drafted mirroring EC Treaty). Anticompetitive agreements are dealt within Article 1 Competition Act 15/2007. The legal wording reads as follows: “Article 1. Collusive Conduct. 1. All agreements, collective decisions or recommendations, or concerted or consciously parallel practices are prohibited, which have as their object, produce or may produce the effect of impeding, restricting or distorting competition in all or part of the national market and, in particular, those which consist of:
a) Directly or indirectly setting prices or other commercial or service conditions. b) Limiting or controlling production, distribution, technical development or investments. c)The share-out of the market or supply sources. d) In commercial or service relationships, the application of unequal conditions for equivalent provisions that put some competitors in an unfavourable position compared with others. e) The subordination of entering into contracts to the acceptance of supplementary provisions which, due to their nature or in accordance with the uses of trade, are not connected to the object of these contracts. 2. Agreements, decisions and recommendations that, being prohibited by virtue of the provisions in Section 1, are not covered by the exemptions set out in this Act are legally null and void. 3. The prohibition in Section 1 will not apply to agreements, decisions, recommendations and practices that contribute to improvements to production or the commercialisation and distribution of goods and services, or to the promotion of technical or economic progress, without the need for any prior decision to this effect, providing that: a) They allow consumers or users to enjoy its benefits equally. b) They do not place on interested undertakings non-essential restrictions for achieving the aim, and c) They do not afford participating undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition for a substantial part of the products or services contemplated. 4. The prohibition in Section 1 will not apply to agreements, decisions or collective recommendations, or concerted or consciously parallel practices that comply with the provisions set out in the Community Regulations for the application of Section 3 of Article 81 of the EC Treaty for certain categories of agreements, undertakings association decisions and agreed practices, including when the corresponding conduct cannot affect trade between EU Member States. 5. The Government may also declare through Royal Decree the application of Section 3 of this article to certain categories of conduct, with a prior report from the Competition Council and the National Competition Commission.”
Carlos Pascual Pons, Spanish National Competition Authority (Madrid), Antitrust encyclopedia: Spain, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 18 Article..: 17385
Sweden-
Section 6 of the Competition Act is modelled on Article 81 of the EC Treaty, providing a prohibition against anticompetitive cooperation between undertakings. The provision reads (although it is only the Swedish version which is authentic): Without prejudice to Articles 8, 8 a, 18 c or 18 e, agreements between undertakings shall be prohibited if they have as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the market to an appreciable extent. This shall apply, in particular, to agreements which: 1. directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions; 2. limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment; 3. share markets or sources of supply;
4. apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading
parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; or 5. make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations, which by their nature or according
to commercial usage have no connection with the subject of such
contracts. The preparatory works of the Act provide that the Act is to be interpreted in line with EC law, including the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Tommy Pettersson, Mannheimer Swartling (Stockholm), Antitrust encyclopedia: Sweden, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 19 Article..: 18482
Switzerland-
The law governing anticompetitive practices is the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of 6 October 1995 (the Competition Act). The following two articles are the main provisions prohibiting anticompetitive practices: Article 5(3) of the Competition Act provides that: “Agreements among actual or potential competitors are presumed to lead to
the elimination of effective competition when they: a) directly or indirectly fix prices; or b) restrict the quantities of goods or services to be produced, bought or supplied; or c) allocate markets geographically or according to trading partners.” Article 5(4) of the Competition Act provides the following: “The elimination of effective competition is also presumed in the case of agreements between enterprises at different levels in the market regarding fixed or minimum prices as well as in the case of agreements in distribution contracts regarding the allocation of territories in so far as sales by other distributors into these territories are not permitted.”
Benoît Merkt, Lenz & Staehelin (Geneva), Antitrust encyclopedia: Switzerland, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 217 Article..: 17096
Turkey-
Section 4 of the Competition Law (largely mirrors Article 81 EC to a certain extent) deals with anti-competitive practices. Section 4 prohibits all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices that have the object or effect of restricting, distorting or impeding competition within Turkey. Section 4 reads as follows: "Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition": “Agreements and concerted practices between undertakings, and decisions and practices of the associations of undertakings the object or effect or the possible impact of which is directly or indirectly to prevent, distort or restrict competition in a certain market for goods or services are unlawful and prohibited. Those cases, particularly, are as follows:To fix purchase or selling prices or the factors such as cost or profit which form the price or all other trading conditions concerning purchase and sales of goods or services; To share markets for goods or services, or to share or control the market sources and components; To control or to determine the quantities of supply or demand in the markets for goods or services, or to determine them outside the market conditions; To impede or restrict the activities of the competitors or to remove existent undertakings from the market by way of boycotts or other practices or to prevent the entry of potential new comers in the market; Except for exclusive dealing arrangements, to apply dissimilar conditions to persons which have equivalent transactions with equal rights and obligations;
Contrary to the nature of the agreement or to the customary commercial rules, to make the conclusion of contracts subject to the purchase of other goods or services or acceptance by the intermediary purchasers to display of other goods or services or acceptance of resale conditions for the goods or services concerned.
Where the existence of an agreement between undertakings cannot be proven, the price changes or the balance of supply and demand in a given market, or conditions of such market are similar to those markets where competition is prevented, distorted or restricted, this constitutes a presumption that the undertakings concerned are engaged in a concerted practice. Each undertaking that allegedly have been engaged in concerted practices may avoid liability if the contrary is proven on economic and rational grounds.”
Vertical agreements, which fall outside the scope of the Block Exemption on Vertical Agreements 2002/2 (amended by Communiqué No. 2007/2) are caught by Section 4 and can also be considered restrictive for the purpose of Competition Law. In this respect, the decisions of the Competition Board confirm that vertical agreements that involve territorial protection, resale price maintenance also restrict competition and thus infringe Section 4 of the Competition Law. Pursuant to Section 56 of the Competition Law, restrictive agreements that infringe Section 4 of the Competition Law are null and void.
Ece Gursoy, Denton Wilde Sapte LLP (London), Antitrust encyclopedia: Turkey, November 2007
Question.: 517 Pays.....: 418 Article..: 19532
U.K.-
The principal legislative provision prohibiting anticompetitive agreements and practices in the UK is found in Chapter I Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA). The prohibition applies to agreements, decisions or concerted practices between undertakings which may affect trade within the UK and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK.
In addition, Part 6 (Section 188) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (EA) establishes a criminal cartel offence for individuals dishonestly to engage in horizontal price-fixing, limiting supply or production, market sharing or bid-rigging in the UK.
See for an example of cartel case: Andreas Stephan, The UK OFT employs a form of direct settlement and agrees over € 155 M penalties in dairies cartel case (Asda, Dairy Crest, Safeway, Sainsbury’s a.o.), 7 December 2007, e-Competitions, N°15533, www.concurrences.com
See for an example of collective agreement between banks: Alex Potter, Alison Jones, The OFT finds collective agreement between banks setting the multilateral interchange fee contrary to both Art. 81 EC and national competition provisions ( MasterCard UK), 6 September 2005, e-Competitions, N°262, www.concurrences.com.Alasdair Balfour, Olswang (London), Claire Mc Comb, Olswang (London), Antitrust encyclopedia: U.K., November 2007Question.: 517 Pays.....: 12 Article..: 15727