A Comparative Study of the Criteria for Identifying Vertical Anti-Competitive Agreements in the Legal System of the European Union and Iran

Kabiri Shahabad, Hamid; Kalantarzadeh Sadabad, Sajjad

doi:10.22096/law.2023.543839.1977

A Comparative Study of the Criteria for Identifying Vertical Anti-Competitive Agreements in the Legal System of the European Union and Iran

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Hamid Kabiri Shahabad ¹

Sajjad Kalantarzadeh Sadabad ²

¹ Assistant Professor of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Political Science and History, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran.

² Ph.D. in Private Law at Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22096/law.2023.543839.1977

Abstract

An agreement between undertakings, if the parties to the contract are at different levels of the supply chain and along each other, is a vertical agreement that can be considered anti-competitive by restricting competition. In this study, by studying EU regulations and Iranian law, the criteria for identifying this type of agreement are discussed. Finally, it was concluded that there are three criteria in the EU regulations for distinguishing these agreements; agreement between undertakings, having an actual or potential effect on trade between member states, restricts competition by object or effect. However, there are cases under the heading of block exemptions. In the Iranian legal system, the agreements covered by Article 45 of the General Policy Implementation Law of Article 44 of the Constitution law (form-based approach) are principally anti-competitive. Other agreements are principally competitive and according to Article 44 of the said law (effect-based approach) are considered anti-competitive: having one of the seven effects provided in the said article and lead to disruption of competition.

Keywords

Competition Law

Vertical Agreements

Anti-Competition

Competition Disruption

Undertakings

Bibliography

Aronsson, Marie. “Selective Distribution and Online Sales-the transformation of European Competition Law into the electronic society.” Master of Law thesis, University of Gothenburg, 2011.

De Faveri, C. R. I. S. T. I. A. N. A. “The Assessment of Selective Distribution Systems Post-Pierre Fabre.” European Competition Journal 3, 2014.

Dunne, Niamh. “Potential Competition in EU Law.” London School of Economics and Political Science Law Department, 2021.

Ghaffari Farsani, Behnam. “Competition rights and its civil enforcement guarantees.” Second edition, Tehran: Mizan, 2018. [In Persian]

Ghafi, Hossein and Saeed Shariati. “Principles of applied jurisprudence.” Volume 1, 17th edition, Qom: Samit, 2017. [In Persian]

Hawk, Barry E. “System failure: vertical restraints and EC competition law.” Common Market L. Rev. 32, 1995.

Hojnik, Janja. “De minimis rule within the EU internal market freedoms: Towards a more mature and legitimate market.” Eur. J. Legal Stud. 6, 2013.

Jones, Alison, and Brenda Sufrin. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Katouzian, Nasser. “General rules of contracts.” Volume 1, 4th edition,

Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 2019. [In Persian]

Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Nagy, Csongor István. “The distinction between anti-competitive object and effect after Allianz: the end of coherence in competition analysis?” World Competition 36, no. 4, 2013.

Ritter, Lennart, and W. David Braun. European competition law: a practitioner's guide. Kluwer Law International BV, 2004.

Samavati, Heshmatullah. “Commercial competition rights and its role in market policy and regulation.” Second edition, Tehran: Ferdowsi Publishing House, 1995. [In Persian]

Saqri, Mohammad. “Companies.” Volume 1, Tehran: Ataheh Publishing Company, 2013. [In Persian]

Whish, Richard, and David Bailey. Competition law. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Conventions and Judgments

Allgemenie Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft AEG Telefunken AG v. Commission, 25 October 1983, [107/82] ECR 3151.

Annex to Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, OJ [2003] L124/56.

C-30/87, Corinne Bodsin v. Pompes Funèbres des regions Libéréés SA, ECR 2579, para 19.

C-56/65 Société Technique Minière (L.T.M.) v. Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (1966) ECR 249.

Cases 56 & 58-64 Etablissements Consten S.A.R.L. and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v. EC commission (1966) ECR 299.

Commission Notice Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty (2004/C 101/08).

Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis) 2001, OJ [2001] C 368/13.

Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community Competition Law, OJ [1997] C372/5.

Commission Notice, Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (2004) OJ [2004] C 101/81.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ [2003] L1/1.

Commission regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices.

European Commission, Commission notice, guidelines on vertical restraints. Official Journal of the European Union, (2010).

Höfner and Elsner vs Macrotron GmbH, C-41/90 [1991] ECR I-1979.

Send comment about this article

Name *

Enter Name.

Email Address *

Enter a valid email address.

Affiliation *

Enter a vaid affiliation.

Comments *

Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)

Security Code *