nach oben

Erschienen in:

2023 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Agreements

verfasst von : Pranvera Këllezi

Erschienen in: Competition Law in Switzerland

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This second chapter introduces the concept of agreement in all its forms, such as convention and concerted practice, and its main features, such as collective action, (non)binding force, decisions of associations of undertakings, as well as its object and effect in terms of restriction of competition. It explains the structure of the Swiss Cartel Act in relation to the assessment of unlawful agreements and explains essential concepts developed by the case law, such as the cas bagatelle or trivial restrictions, the significant restriction of competition, the elimination of competition and its presumption in cases such as horizontal price fixing or absolute territorial restriction in vertical restrictions, and the criteria for rebutting the presumption. Finally, it introduces the assessment of the restriction of competition on the basis of qualitative and quantitative criteria and the justification on the basis of economic efficiency.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Enactment, Scope of Application, and Enforcement of the Cartel Act

Nächstes Kapitel Horizontal Agreements

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Article 5 CartA on unlawful agreements affecting competition reads as follows: “1) Agreements that significantly restrict competition in a market for specific goods or services and are not justified on grounds of economic efficiency, and all agreements that eliminate effective competition are unlawful. 2) Agreements affecting competition are deemed to be justified on grounds of economic efficiency if: a. they are necessary in order to reduce production or distribution costs, improve products or production processes, promote research into or dissemination of technical or professional know-how, or exploit resources more rationally; and b. they will under no circumstances enable the parties involved to eliminate effective competition. 3) The following agreements between actual or potential competitors are presumed to lead to the elimination of effective competition: a. agreements to directly or indirectly fix prices; b. agreements to limit the quantities of goods or services to be produced, purchased or supplied; c. agreements to allocate markets geographically or according to trading partners. 4) The elimination of effective competition is also presumed in the case of agreements between undertakings at different levels of the production and distribution chain regarding fixed or minimum prices, and in the case of agreements contained in distribution contracts regarding the allocation of territories to the extent that sales by other distributors into these territories are not permitted.”

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, Sammelrevers, para 3.

Article 49a CartA.

See Bovet (2013).

Cf. Article 23(2) Regulation 1/2003 and Guidelines on the setting of fines, para 32.

CJEU, judgment of 29 June 2023, Super Bock, C-211/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:529, para 32.

CJEU, judgment of 29 June 2023, Super Bock, C-211/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:529, para 42.

FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, ATF/BGE 143 II 297 Gaba, para 5.5.

CJEU, judgment of 2 April 2020, Budapest Bank, C-228/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:265, para 51. CJEU, judgment of 11 September 2014, Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB), C-67/13 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2204, para 53. CJEU, judgment of 14 March 2013, Allianz Hungária, C-32/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:160, para 36.

CJEU, judgment of 29 June 2023, Super Bock, C-211/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:529, para 36.

FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, Gaba, ATF/BGE 143 II 297, para 5.3.4: “Prohibitions of harmful conduct are perfectly permissible, as the legislator has made explicit in Articles 5(1) and 7(1) of the Cartel Act: Certain agreements and certain conduct are unlawful by virtue of the law. The direct sanctioning under Art. 49a Cartel Act for violations of agreements under Art. 5 paras. 3 and 4 of the Cartel Act and of conduct under Art. 7 of the Cartel Act respects the constitutional requirements”. (free translation)

FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, Gaba, ATF/BGE 143 II 297, para 3.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 6.4.

FSC, judgment of 21 December 2021, 2C_43/2020, Dargaud, ATF/BGE 148 II 25, paras 7.2 and 7.3.

FSC, judgment of 8 December 2022, 2C_33/2020, Interforum Suisse SA.

FSC of 3 March 2020 in the case 2C_44/2020 Flammarion, para 6.6. The Court based its assessment on the fact that the Swiss dealer did not become the owner of the books and that it did not bear the risk of unsold books, which was born by the editor.

FSC, judgment of 3 March 2020, 2C_44/2020 Flammarion, para 6.7.

FSC, judgment of 8 December 2022, 2C_33/2020, Interforum Suisse SA, para 7.6.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246 para 6.4.1; cf. FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 6.3; FSC, judgment of 13 November 1998 ATF/BGE 124 III 495, para 2a.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 6.4.1; FSC, judgment of 13 November 1998 ATF/BGE 124 III 495, para 2a.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 6.4.1.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, ATF/BGE 144 II 246 Altimum, para 6.4.1.

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 4; FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 6.4.1.

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 4.

FSC, judgment of 12 February 2020, 2C_113/2017, Hallenstadion.

Idem, para 6.4.1; FSC, judgment of 19 January 2007, 4C.371/2006, para 5.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246 para 6.4.1.

FSC, judgment of 3 March 2022, 2C_44/2020, Flammarion, para 9.1; FSC, judgment of 8 December 2022, 2C_52/2020, Glénat, para 7.3.2.

FSC, judgment of 8 December 2022, 2C_52/2020, Glénat, para 7.3.2.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246 para 6.4.1.

Idem, para 6.4.1.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 6.4.1.

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18.

FSC, judgment of 4 February 2021, 2C_149/2018, Pfizer, ATF/BGE 147 II 72. For a detailed analysis of the case, see Sect. 4.3.1.1 about Resale Price Maintenance.

FAC, judgment of 5 June 2023, B-4596/2019 CA Auto Finance Suisse SA, para 5.2.3.14.

FAC, judgment of 5 June 2023, B-4596/2019 CA Auto Finance Suisse SA, para 5.2.3.13: “It has already been stated above that it is not necessary that the market conduct takes place exactly in parallel. No high requirements are to be placed on the proof of market conduct. The conduct on the market must only have been influenced by the contact. The decisive factor is thus whether the conduct had any effect on the market conduct of the undertakings concerned, without having to be further specified (references omitted). The appellant’s objections that an adjustment of its market conduct was not established because an economic analysis showed a heterogeneous distribution of the standard and special interest rates thus miss the point.”

FAC, judgment of 5 June 2023, B-4596/2019 CA Auto Finance Suisse SA, para 5.2.4.4.

FAC, judgment of 12 December 2022, B-141/2012, Estée Lauder/ASCOPA, para 4.4.3.2.2.

COMCO, decision of 25 February 2019, Fahrlehrertarife Oberwallis, LPC 2019/2, p. 513. The terms of the amicable settlement read: “The [association] undertakes to ensure that the sanction and the costs of the proceedings are fully covered by its active members.” (free translation from German)

In German: Gesamtabrede or Dauerabrede. In Italian: accordi globali or accordi duraturi.

FAC, judgment of 1 June 2010, B-420/2008, Implenia, LPC 2010/2, p. 368, para 9.1.1; FAC, judgment of 1 June 2010, B-360/2008 Spalu, LPC 2010/2, p. 393, para 10.1.1: “Depending on the nature and characteristics of the goods to be procured in the case of public procurement, the markets concerned may exist over various periods of time. It is conceivable that, in addition to markets of short duration, whether they occur at once or recurrently, depending on the specific circumstances and as the following paragraphs show, there may also be a genuine market of unlimited duration and thus a procurement cartel of unlimited duration.” (free translation).

COMCO decision of 23 May 2023 Concessionari Volkswagen, para 487.

See COMCO decision of 10 December 2012 Abrede im Speditionsbereich, LPC 2013/2, p. 142, para 75.

Cf. Castillo de la Torre and Gippini (2017), 3.032 (start of the infringement) and 3.045 (termination).

Ordinance on Sanctions imposed for Unlawful Restraints of Competition (Cartel Act Sanctions Ordinance, CASO; RS 251.5).

Article 49a (3) (b) CartA, which provides that no fine will be imposed if “restraint of competition has not been exercised for more than five years by the time an investigation is opened”.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 6.4.4.

Idem, para 6.4.4; see also ATF 139 I 72, para 8.3.2.

FSC, judgment of 29 June 2012, 2C_484/2010, Publigroupe, ATF/BGE 139 I 72, para 8.3.2.

Idem, para 8.3.2.

See for instance FSC, judgment of 8 December 2022, case 2C_52/2020, Glénat, para 7.3.3 (free translation).

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 6.4.4.

FSC, judgment of 4 February 2021, 2C_149/2018, Pfizer, ATF/BGE 147 II 72.

FAC, judgment of 12 December 2022, B-141/2012, Estée Lauder/ASCOPA, para 3.2.2.2.8.

Idem, para 6.3.3.3.2.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, paras 6.4.2 and 6.8; FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 5.1 and 5.2.2.

FAC, judgment of 12 December 2022, B-141/2012, Estée Lauder/ASCOPA, para 4.6.4.3.

Idem, para 4.6.5.2.

Idem, para 4.7.4.2.

FAC, judgment of 12 December 2022, B-141/2012, Estée Lauder/ASCOPA, para 4.6.6.

GC, judgment of 11 September 2014, Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2204, C-67/13 P, para 53.

See Federal Council, Press release of 24 May 2023, “Loi sur les cartels: le Conseil fédéral adopte le message concernant la révision partielle”, available at https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques/communiques-conseil-federal.msg-id-95384.html. The draft law can be found at: https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/78852.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2023.

FSC, judgment of 12 February 2020, 2C_113/2017, Hallenstadion, para 7.3.1.

FAC, judgment of 12 December 2022, B-141/2012, Estée Lauder/ASCOPA, para 6.3.2.1.

Idem, para 6.3.2.7.

Idem, para 6.3.1.4.1.

Notice on agreements with limited market impact, Decision of the Competition Commission of 19 December 2005 (hereafter ‘SME Notice’).

SME Notice, para 3.

SME Notice, paras 4 and 5.

This is certainly the case for restrictions under Article 5(3) and (4): if they are not trivial, they are significant.

Known as the NAAT-rule; see Commission Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 81, paras 50ff. The effect on trade between Member States is a jurisdictional criterion that defines the competence of the EU competition rules. Agreements that do not affect trade between Member States are subject to national competition rules.

See FAC, judgment of 12 December 2022, B-141/2012, Estée Lauder/ASCOPA, para 6.3.3.3.5.

Idem, para 6.3.2.

Idem, para 6.3.3.4.

FSC, judgment of 12 February 2020, 2C_113/2017, Hallenstadion, para 7.3.1 (free translation).

Idem, para 7.3.2.

Idem, para 7.3.3.

See FAC, judgment of 12 December 2022, B-141/2012 Estée Lauder/ASCOPA. The time lapse is important because in the meantime the FSC had issued the Gaba decision, which considered the absolute territorial protection covered by Article 5(4) CartA as a significant restriction of competition from a qualitative point of view and ruled that, for this reason, no assessment of the effects or the quantitative elements was necessary, even though the presumption had been reversed.

The function is thus similar to the US Leegin case on minimum prices, i.e. to avoid declaring a vertical price agreement per se illegal (FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 10.2). Cf. CJEU, judgment of 29 June 2023, Super Bock, C-211/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:529, para 36, where the CJEU allows pro-competitive effects to be taken into account under Article 101(1) TFEU.

Article 5 (2)(b) CartA; FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 13; FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, Gaba, ATF/BGE 143 II 297, para 7.1.

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 10.3 p. 45; FSC, judgement of 6 February 2007, 2A.430/2006 Buchpreisbindung, para 13.2; FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246 para 13.2.

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, paras 10.3.2 and 10.3.3 concerning horizontal agreements; FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 13.2 concerning vertical agreements.

FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, Gaba, ATF/BGE 143 II 297, para 4.1.

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 8.3.2.

Idem, para 8.3.2.

Idem, para 7.2.

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 8.1 (free translation, references omitted).

Idem, para 9.5.5.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246 para 7.2.

Idem, para 7.2; FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, Gaba, ATF/BGE 143 II 297, para 4.2.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 7.2.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 7.3.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 7.2.

FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, Gaba, ATF/BGE 143 II 297, paras 5.1 and 5.2; judgment of 24 October 2017, 2C_63/2016, para 4.3.1; FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 10.3.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, ATF/BGE 144 II 246 Altimum, para 10.3.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 13.5.3.

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 13.5; FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, ATF/BGE 143 II 297 Gaba, para 7.1; FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 10.4.

100

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 13.5.1; FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 10.4.

101

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, paras 13.5.3 and 15.

102

Idem, para 13.5.3.

103

Ibid.

104

FSC, judgment of 18 May 2018, 2C_101/2016, Altimum, ATF/BGE 144 II 246, para 13.5.3.

105

Idem, para 13.5.3.

106

Idem, para 13.5.2.

107

FSC, judgment of 28 June 2016, 2C_180/2014, Gaba, ATF/BGE 143 II 297, para 9.4.6.

108

FSC, judgment of 14 August 2002, 2A.298/2001 and 2A.299/2001, Sammelrevers, ATF/BGE 129 II 18, para 8.3.2.

Bovet C (2013) Parallel imports into Switzerland: the case of motor vehicles. J Eur Competition Law Pract 2013(1):83–86CrossRef

Castillo de la Torre F, Gippini EF (2017) Evidence, proof and judicial review in the EU competition law. Edward ElgarCrossRef

Titel: Agreements
verfasst von: Pranvera Këllezi
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Competition Law in Switzerland
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45116-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-45117-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45117-1_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner