Blurry Lines – A Discussion on Information Exchange in Dual Distribution Scenarios from a Legal Certainty Perspective
(2020) JURM02 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In this thesis the legal certainty issues connected to the way information exchange in dual distribution scenarios is treated by EU Competition law are discussed. The question of how such information exchange should be treated to increase the legal certainty is also discussed.
Starting with an explanation of purely vertical and purely horizontal information exchange and how they are assessed under EU Competition law, it also touches on why these types of information exchange are treated differently.
Furthermore, the thesis explains dual distribution scenarios, what rules apply to them and how these rules can be interpreted today. Other practices that blurry the lines between vertical and horizontal agreements are brought up and two... (More) - In this thesis the legal certainty issues connected to the way information exchange in dual distribution scenarios is treated by EU Competition law are discussed. The question of how such information exchange should be treated to increase the legal certainty is also discussed.
Starting with an explanation of purely vertical and purely horizontal information exchange and how they are assessed under EU Competition law, it also touches on why these types of information exchange are treated differently.
Furthermore, the thesis explains dual distribution scenarios, what rules apply to them and how these rules can be interpreted today. Other practices that blurry the lines between vertical and horizontal agreements are brought up and two closely related, recent Danish decisions on information exchange in dual distribution scenarios are explained and discussed.
Three different definitions of legal certainty are presented and provide the basis for the discussion on the present issues related to information exchange in dual distribution scenarios and how these issues can be resolved. The main issue is a lack of predictability. This comes from the unclear meaning of the phrase “non-reciprocal agreement” in Article 2(4) VBER and from the unclarity as to how the practices that do not fit into the distinction between vertical and horizontal agreements, are to be treated.
In order to increase the legal certainty in the future, the Commission can remove the phrase “non-reciprocal agreements” from the article, or at least explain it in the vertical guidelines. The Commission could also add a section to the new vertical guidelines that addresses how dual distribution scenarios, and similar practices should be assessed. This way it would be possible to fully take into account the special characteristics of dual distribution. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I den här uppsatsen diskuteras rättssäkerhetsproblemen med hur
informationsutbyte i situationer med dubbel återförsäljning behandlas inom
konkurrensrätten i EU. Även frågan om hur sådant informationsutbyte borde
behandlas för att öka rättssäkerheten diskuteras.
Uppsatsen inleds med en förklaring av rent vertikala och rent horisontella
informationsutbyten och hur de bedöms under EU:s konkurrensrätt och berör
även varför de olika sorterna av informationsutbyte behandlas olika.
Vidare förklarar uppsatsen vad dubbel återförsäljning är, vilka regler som
gäller för dem och hur dessa regler kan tolkas idag. Andra beteenden som
suddar ut gränsen mellan vertikala och horisontella avtal förs fram och två
nya danska beslut om... (More) - I den här uppsatsen diskuteras rättssäkerhetsproblemen med hur
informationsutbyte i situationer med dubbel återförsäljning behandlas inom
konkurrensrätten i EU. Även frågan om hur sådant informationsutbyte borde
behandlas för att öka rättssäkerheten diskuteras.
Uppsatsen inleds med en förklaring av rent vertikala och rent horisontella
informationsutbyten och hur de bedöms under EU:s konkurrensrätt och berör
även varför de olika sorterna av informationsutbyte behandlas olika.
Vidare förklarar uppsatsen vad dubbel återförsäljning är, vilka regler som
gäller för dem och hur dessa regler kan tolkas idag. Andra beteenden som
suddar ut gränsen mellan vertikala och horisontella avtal förs fram och två
nya danska beslut om informationsutbyte i situationer med dubbel
återförsäljning förklaras och diskuteras.
Tre olika definitioner av rättssäkerhet presenteras och utgör grunden för
diskussionen om de nuvarande problemen som finns gällande
informationsutbyte i situationer med dubbel återförsäljning och hur dessa
problem kan åtgärdas. Det främsta problemet är brist på förutsebarhet. Bristen
på förutsebarhet beror på att betydelsen av frasen “non-reciprocal agreement”
i Artikel 2(4) VBER är oklar, samt att det är oklart hur beteenden som inte
passar in i distinktionen mellan vertikala och horisontella avtal ska bedömas.
För att öka rättssäkerheten i framtiden kan EU-kommissionen ta bort frasen
”non-reciprocal agreement” från artikeln, eller åtminstone förklara frasens
betydelse i de vertikala riktlinjerna. Kommissionen skulle också kunna lägga
till en sektion i de omarbetade riktlinjerna som berör hur dubbel
återförsäljning, och andra liknande situationer, borde bedömas. Detta skulle
medföra en möjlighet att till fullo beakta de speciella karaktärsdragen som
dubbel återförsäljning har. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9034290
- author
- Arnetorp, Sara LU
- supervisor
-
- Anna Tzanaki LU
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU law, civil and criminal procedure, competition law, dual distribution, information exchange
- language
- English
- id
- 9034290
- date added to LUP
- 2021-01-31 12:22:44
- date last changed
- 2021-01-31 12:22:44
@misc{9034290,
abstract = {{In this thesis the legal certainty issues connected to the way information exchange in dual distribution scenarios is treated by EU Competition law are discussed. The question of how such information exchange should be treated to increase the legal certainty is also discussed.
Starting with an explanation of purely vertical and purely horizontal information exchange and how they are assessed under EU Competition law, it also touches on why these types of information exchange are treated differently.
Furthermore, the thesis explains dual distribution scenarios, what rules apply to them and how these rules can be interpreted today. Other practices that blurry the lines between vertical and horizontal agreements are brought up and two closely related, recent Danish decisions on information exchange in dual distribution scenarios are explained and discussed.
Three different definitions of legal certainty are presented and provide the basis for the discussion on the present issues related to information exchange in dual distribution scenarios and how these issues can be resolved. The main issue is a lack of predictability. This comes from the unclear meaning of the phrase “non-reciprocal agreement” in Article 2(4) VBER and from the unclarity as to how the practices that do not fit into the distinction between vertical and horizontal agreements, are to be treated.
In order to increase the legal certainty in the future, the Commission can remove the phrase “non-reciprocal agreements” from the article, or at least explain it in the vertical guidelines. The Commission could also add a section to the new vertical guidelines that addresses how dual distribution scenarios, and similar practices should be assessed. This way it would be possible to fully take into account the special characteristics of dual distribution.}},
author = {{Arnetorp, Sara}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Blurry Lines – A Discussion on Information Exchange in Dual Distribution Scenarios from a Legal Certainty Perspective}},
year = {{2020}},
}