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
Uruguayan Antitrust Scrutiny Puts Major Meatpacking Deal Between Marfrig and Minerva on Hold
May 19, 2024 by
CPI
Alaska Airlines Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Lawsuit Over $1.9 Billion Hawaiian Airlines Buy
May 19, 2024 by
CPI
Idaho Attorney General Orders Split of Kootenai Health and Syringa Hospital
May 19, 2024 by
CPI
Court Rejects T-Mobile’s Appeal Bid in Antitrust Case Over Sprint Merger
May 19, 2024 by
CPI
Google Requests Judge, Not Jury, to Decide on Antitrust Case
May 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI