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
European Music Streaming Firms Rally Against Apple’s Proposed Remedies
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Google and South Carolina Clash Over State Records Demand
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Telefonica Germany Teams Up with Amazon Web Services to Migrate 5G Customers
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Grants $7.4 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Case
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Wilson Sonsini Bolsters Antitrust and Competition Practice with Key Partner Returns
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI