CASE COMMENTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS - CUSTOMER ALLOCATION– RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION

Customer allocation : The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that customer allocation agreements concluded between private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constitute agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market (ING Pensii)

La présente affaire met en cause des accords de répartition de clients entre fonds de pension privés. La loi roumaine impose aux personnes âgées de moins de 35 ans et qui contribuent au régime public de retraite d’adhérer à un fonds de pension (article 30 de la loi n° 411/2004). Chacun étant libre de choisir son fonds de pension (article 5 de l’arrêté n° 18/2007 de la Commission de surveillance du régime de pensions privées), la loi a prévu l’hypothèse des doublons, d’abord en posant le principe selon lequel “une personne [...] ne peut détenir qu’un seul compte auprès du fonds de pension auquel elle participe [...]” (article 31 de la loi susvisée), et ensuite, en prévoyant que les personnes qui se sont inscrites dans deux fonds de pension privés voient leur adhésion invalidée, et ces doublons sont alors

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Martine Behar-Touchais, Customer allocation : The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that customer allocation agreements concluded between private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constitute agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market (ING Pensii), 16 July 2015, Concurrences Review N° 4-2015, Art. N° 76293, pp. 105-107

Visites 189

All reviews