Exempting agreements

Where collective rather than individual action is deemed optimal, parties might agree restraints or obligations deemed necessary to protect an investment in relation to, for example, the development of a geographic market, a technology, a production plant or an industrial process or to increase the parties' purchasing power vis-à-vis a powerful supplier. More commonly, restraints may be required simply to facilitate day-to-day business activities such as distribution or supply/purchasing arrangements.

However, where such an agreement is determined to have a restrictive 'object' and/or shown to produce appreciably restrictive 'effects' within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, the agreement will be illegal unless the contracting parties can benefit from an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU—either by bringing the agreement within the safe harbour of a potentially applicable block exemption or by explicitly justifying the arrangement on 'efficiency' grounds.

See further, Individual exemptions under Article 101(3) TFEU.

Block exemptions

Article 101(3) TFEU applies to categories of agreements by way of 'block exemption' regulations adopted by the European Commission (the Commission). The block exemption regulations establish ‘safe-harbour’ regimes whereby agreements will be considered legal and enforceable provided that they meet the specified

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Competition News

UK Competition law—daily round-up (20/12/2024)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (amongst other things) the CMA’s decision that the Synopsys/Ansys merger meets the test for reference to phase 2.

High Court confirms broad government discretion in UK national security reviews

Competition analysis: In this judgment, the High Court issued its first ever ruling on a challenge to an unwinding order imposed by the UK government under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA 2021). In a clear victory for the government, the court confirmed the broad discretion of the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate remedy for resolving national security concerns arising from a problematic transaction, up to and including forced divestment of the acquirer’s shareholding in a qualifying entity, as well confirming that the overall process followed by the Government in such cases is fair and proportionate. The judgment is also notable for the insights that it provides into the process followed by Government officials and ministers for in-depth reviews under the NSIA 2021, with the level of detail going well beyond what has been disclosed in the Government’s own guidance to date. Written by Becket McGrath, partner at Euclid Law Ltd.

Competition weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the latest NSI Act 2021 developments, (2) the DCMS’ decision to extend its deadline for responses to its consultation on updating the media mergers regime, and (3) the CMA grants permission for collective action against Google over alleged market abuse. This week’s highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the General Court’s judgment dismissing further actions against Commission’s decision finding that a scheme designed to promote regional development in Maderia was unlawful State aid.

UK Competition law—daily round-up (19/12/2024)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (amongst other things) (1) the CMA publishes an updated version of its Guidance on investigation procedures under the CA 1998 cases following changes brought by the DMCCA, (2) the CMA publishes final guidance on the digital markets competition regime, as well a separate guidance on the merger reporting requirements for SMS firms, (3) the CMA publishes an updated statement of policy concerning its approach to imposing administrative penalties for failure to comply with requirements imposed under its investigatory and remedies powers, (4) the CMA publishes updated guidance on its transparency and disclosure statement, including new overseas investigative assistance, (5) the CMA publishes guidance on its information gathering powers relating to road fuel monitoring, (6) the CMA publishes a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the CMA, the Bank of England and the PRA regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (7) the CMA publishes a MoU between the CMA and Ofcom regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (8) the CMA publishes a MoU between the CMA and ICO regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (9) the CMA publishes a report concerning its 10-year review of concurrency arrangements, and (10) the CAT’s judgment dismissing a claim regarding excessive pricing brought against BT in the first opt-out competition collective action to go to trial.