Case C-211/22, Super Bock: The Binon (formalistic) Era Is Over, And Vertical Price-Fixing Is No Longer The Odd One Out
By: Pablo Ibañez Colomo (Chillin’ Competition)
A previous post on this platform revealed why formalism is ineffective in assessing whether an agreement limits competition. Simply including clauses for price-fixing or market-sharing does not automatically indicate a ‘by object’ infringement.
What’s more, the legal precedents do not support the rigid interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU. The Court consistently highlights the importance of considering the economic and legal context in reaching any conclusion regarding the agreement.
Speaking of legal precedents, there was a small instance of formalism akin to Asterix’s Gaul. In the Binon case, the Court of Justice declared that vertical price-fixing restricts competition by object (Binon, para 44). This conclusion was solely based on the nature of the restraint itself…
Featured News
Big Tech Braces for Potential Changes Under a Second Trump Presidency
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
Trump’s Potential Shift in US Antitrust Policy Raises Questions for Big Tech and Mergers
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU Set to Fine Apple in First Major Enforcement of Digital Markets Act
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Six Indicted in Federal Bid-Rigging Schemes Involving Government IT Contracts
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Ireland Secures First €3 Billion Apple Tax Payment, Boosting Exchequer Funds
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI