Restriction by Object: A Restriction Based Purely on Experience or Also on Effects?
(2021) JAEM01 20211Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract
- Article 101 TFEU prohibits agreements between undertakings that restrict competition either by object or effect. Restricting competition by object or effect are alternative conditions. Problematically, both the concept of a restriction by object and its relation to restrictions by effect are obscure. The purpose of this thesis is to elucidate the applicability of restrictions by object, in means of answering whether an agreement incapable of having restrictive effects can be restrictive by object. A legal doctrinal method and a textual, contextual, and teleological interpretation are adopted.
From examining the requirements for finding a restriction by object, this thesis discerns that only one requirement exists. Namely, a disputed... (More) - Article 101 TFEU prohibits agreements between undertakings that restrict competition either by object or effect. Restricting competition by object or effect are alternative conditions. Problematically, both the concept of a restriction by object and its relation to restrictions by effect are obscure. The purpose of this thesis is to elucidate the applicability of restrictions by object, in means of answering whether an agreement incapable of having restrictive effects can be restrictive by object. A legal doctrinal method and a textual, contextual, and teleological interpretation are adopted.
From examining the requirements for finding a restriction by object, this thesis discerns that only one requirement exists. Namely, a disputed agreement must, based on experience, be subsumed under a by object type of collusion. By object types of collusion arise from experience, by the clustering of anti-competitive collisions based on common traits (common denominators). Agreements meeting the common denominators of a by object type of collusion can be subsumed under that type unless featuring contextual anomalies that adduce reasonable doubt to the experience that agreements featuring the common denominators entail anti-competitive effects. The requirement includes no assessment of actual or potential effects in casu.
For the assessment of whether an agreement is restrictive by object, the responsible competition authority needs to consider and prove only the circumstances necessary for meeting the common denominators of a by object type of collusion. Subsequently, it is for the defendant to invoke arguments adducing reasonable doubt as to reliance on experience in casu.
The thesis concludes that an agreement incapable of restricting competition can in principle be restrictive by object. However, while no assessment of effects in casu is relevant, such an agreement would only unlikely be classified as a by object type of collusion, to begin with. (Less) - Popular Abstract (Swedish)
- Artikel 101 FEUF förbjuder avtal mellan företag som har till antingen syfte eller resultat att begränsa konkurrens. Syftes- och resultatöverträdelser är alternativa förbudsförutsättningar. Emellertid råder oklarhet kring konceptet syftesöverträdelse samt dess relation till resultatöverträdelser. Denna uppsats ämnar belysa tillämpligheten av konceptet syftesöverträdelse, för att besvara huruvida ett avtal som är inkapabelt att ha konkurrensbegränsande effekt kan utgöra en syftesöverträdelse. För ändamålet tillämpas en rättsdogmatisk metod samt en texttrogen, kontexttrogen och teleologisk lagtolkning.
Genom att undersöka förutsättningarna för att tillämpa syftesöverträdelser, finner denna uppsats att enbart ett rekvisit ställs upp. Ett... (More) - Artikel 101 FEUF förbjuder avtal mellan företag som har till antingen syfte eller resultat att begränsa konkurrens. Syftes- och resultatöverträdelser är alternativa förbudsförutsättningar. Emellertid råder oklarhet kring konceptet syftesöverträdelse samt dess relation till resultatöverträdelser. Denna uppsats ämnar belysa tillämpligheten av konceptet syftesöverträdelse, för att besvara huruvida ett avtal som är inkapabelt att ha konkurrensbegränsande effekt kan utgöra en syftesöverträdelse. För ändamålet tillämpas en rättsdogmatisk metod samt en texttrogen, kontexttrogen och teleologisk lagtolkning.
Genom att undersöka förutsättningarna för att tillämpa syftesöverträdelser, finner denna uppsats att enbart ett rekvisit ställs upp. Ett omtvistat avtal måste, baserat på erfarenhet, utgöra en syftesbegränsande sammarbetstyp. Syftesbegränsande samarbetstyper skapas utifrån erfarenhet, genom att flertalet konkurrensbegränsande samarbeten sammanfogas utifrån deras gemensamma drag. Ett avtal som uppvisar de gemensamma dragen för en syftesbegränsande sammarbetstyp tillhör den typen, med mindre att avtalet uppvisar kontextuella atypier som tillför rimligt tvivel till erfarenheten att avtal med de gemensamma dragen orsakar konkurrensbegränsande effekter. Kravet förutsätter ingen analys av faktiska eller potentiella effekter in casu.
Vid bedömning av om ett avtal utgör en syftesöverträdelse, behöver den berörda myndigheten beakta och bevisa enbart de omständigheter som motsvarar de gemensamma dragen för en syftesbegränsande sammarbetstyp. Därefter åligger det svaranden att anföra argument som bringar rimligt tvivel till förlitan på erfarenhet in casu.
Slutsatsen är att ett avtal som är inkapabelt att ha konkurrensbegränsande effekter i princip kan utgöra en syftesöverträdelse. Även om effekter in casu inte är relevanta, är det emellertid osannolikt att ett sådant avtal skulle klassificeras som en syftesbegränsande sammarbetstyp, till att börja med. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9048502
- author
- Lindén, Joar LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JAEM01 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
- subject
- keywords
- EU law, EU competition law, competition law, restriction by object, by object restriction, by object types of collusion, anti-competitive object, restriction by effect, context, economic and legal context, counterfactual assessment
- language
- English
- id
- 9048502
- date added to LUP
- 2021-07-12 14:17:22
- date last changed
- 2021-07-12 14:17:22
@misc{9048502,
abstract = {{Article 101 TFEU prohibits agreements between undertakings that restrict competition either by object or effect. Restricting competition by object or effect are alternative conditions. Problematically, both the concept of a restriction by object and its relation to restrictions by effect are obscure. The purpose of this thesis is to elucidate the applicability of restrictions by object, in means of answering whether an agreement incapable of having restrictive effects can be restrictive by object. A legal doctrinal method and a textual, contextual, and teleological interpretation are adopted.
From examining the requirements for finding a restriction by object, this thesis discerns that only one requirement exists. Namely, a disputed agreement must, based on experience, be subsumed under a by object type of collusion. By object types of collusion arise from experience, by the clustering of anti-competitive collisions based on common traits (common denominators). Agreements meeting the common denominators of a by object type of collusion can be subsumed under that type unless featuring contextual anomalies that adduce reasonable doubt to the experience that agreements featuring the common denominators entail anti-competitive effects. The requirement includes no assessment of actual or potential effects in casu.
For the assessment of whether an agreement is restrictive by object, the responsible competition authority needs to consider and prove only the circumstances necessary for meeting the common denominators of a by object type of collusion. Subsequently, it is for the defendant to invoke arguments adducing reasonable doubt as to reliance on experience in casu.
The thesis concludes that an agreement incapable of restricting competition can in principle be restrictive by object. However, while no assessment of effects in casu is relevant, such an agreement would only unlikely be classified as a by object type of collusion, to begin with.}},
author = {{Lindén, Joar}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Restriction by Object: A Restriction Based Purely on Experience or Also on Effects?}},
year = {{2021}},
}