Sie zeigen eine alte Version dieser Seite an. Zeigen Sie die aktuelle Version an.

Unterschiede anzeigen Seitenhistorie anzeigen

« Vorherige Version anzeigen Version 4 Nächste Version anzeigen »


A. Introduction

1

Art. 101 para. 1 applies to agreements concluded between two or more undertakings. It is not applicable however, where agreements are concluded between companies forming part of a single economic entity or to genuine agency agreements.

Unknown macro: {footnote}

ECJ Case C-73/95 P Viho Europe BV v. Commission (24.10.1996) ECR I-5457 para. 51.


B. Horizontal and Vertical Agreements

2

In Consten and Grundig, the ECJ held that Art. 81 para. 1 (now Art. 101 para. 1 TFEU) refers in a general way to all agreements which distort competition within the Common Market and does not lay down any distinction between those agreements based on whether they are made between competitors operating at the same level in the economic process (horizontal agreements), or between non-competing persons operating at different levels (vertical agreements).

Unknown macro: {footnote}

ECJ Case C-56 and 58/64, Consten and Grundig (13.07.1966) ECR 339, 340.

 In principle, no distinction can be made where the Treaty does not make any distinction.   

C. Form of the Agreement

3

The term "agreement" catches agreements whether or not they amount to a contract under national rules, whether or not they are intended to be legally binding and whether they are in writing or oral. It covers so-called “gentlemen’s’ agreements”, standard conditions of sale, trade association rules (which are treated as an agreement between the members to abide by the rules) and agreements entered into to settle disputes, such as trademark delimitation agreements. An agreement exists once the parties agree on “good neighbour rules” or “establish practice and ethics” or “certain rules of the game which it is in the interests of all of us to follow”.

Unknown macro: {footnote}

ECJ Case C-209-15 and 218/78 Van Landewyck v. Commission ( 30/10/1978) paras. 85, 86.

 Where there is a concurrence of wills, the agreement's form is unimportant so long as it constitutes the faithful expression of the parties’ intention.

Unknown macro: {footnote}

ECJ Case C‑74/04 P Commission v Volkswagen (13/06/2006 ) para. 39.

D. Duration of the Agreement

4

It does not matter that no sanction is provided for breach of the agreement. Further, an agreement which has been terminated may be caught by Art. 101 para. 1 in respect of the period after termination, when the effects of the agreement continue to be felt.

Unknown macro: {footnote}

CFI Case T-7/89 Hercules Chemicals v. Commission(17.12.1991) para. 257.

E. Agreement and Unilateral Conduct 

5

The term “agreement” catches terms and conditions even if imposed by one party on another. If the terms are accepted the fact that one of the parties was unwilling to accept them does not prevent the agreement from being formed. InBMW Belgiuman agreement was found to have been concluded which incorporated export bans imposed on reluctant BMW dealers.

Unknown macro: {footnote}

ECJ Case C-32/78 BMW Belgium (12/07/1979) paras. 26-36.

F. Intracorporate Agreements 

I. Definition

II. Impact of the Viho Europe Case


Unknown macro: {display-footnotes}


Publikationsvermerk

Verantwortlich: Freie Universität Berlin - vertreten durch den Präsidenten.

Autoren: [Quang Ngoc Dam][Eva Garmpi][Maria Felicia Chacon Diaz][Bishara Jabaly][Helena Pavlin]

Stand der Bearbeitung: J.K. check 1: temp. & footnotes (13.05.2012)

outgoing links

incoming-links

  • Keine Stichwörter