CJEU Judgment in Super Bock: New Insight on Resale Price Maintenance

31.07.2023 Can Yıldız

Introduction

Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still considered a hardcore restriction under the recently revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which means that it cannot benefit from a statutory exemption under Article 101(1) TFEU, unlike certain other types of vertical agreements. However, it has been debated whether this classification automatically indicates a violation of Article 101(1) TFEU.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently issued a significant judgment[1] regarding Super Bock, a Portuguese beer/beverage manufacturer, and its imposition of minimum resale prices on exclusive distributors. The CJEU's ruling sheds light on the potential contravention of competition law in such practices. This article explores the background of the case, the CJEU's decision, and its implications for competition law.

CJEU Judgment in Super Bock: New Insight on Resale Price Maintenance
% 0

Background

Super Bock Bebidas, a prominent Portuguese beverage manufacturer and supplier, was fined EUR 24 million by the Portuguese competition authority (Autoridade da Concorrencia – AdC) in 2019 for imposing specific fixed or minimum prices on its distributors for sales to hotels, restaurants, and bars. Despite complaints, the distributors complied with the imposed prices, as Super Bock monitored their adherence. Non-compliance could result in various penalties, such as the removal of trade discounts or altogether refusal to supply products. Distributors often sought guidance from Super Bock to avoid these retaliatory measures.

Super Bock appealed the decision, arguing that the competition authority failed to demonstrate the existence of an agreement and the harm caused. The company sought to have the fine completely annulled or reduced.

In March 2022, the Lisbon Court of Appeal referred several questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The questions sought clarification on:

a. whether a vertical agreement fixing minimum resale prices can be considered a restriction of competition by "object,"

b. how the concept of an "agreement" should be interpreted in the context of Super Bock imposing minimum resale prices on its distributors,

c.  whether a distribution agreement affecting almost the entirety of a single Member State's territory falls under the concept of "effect on trade between Member States."

Summary of the Judgment

a. Regarding the first question, the CJEU confirmed that vertical RPM agreements can, under certain conditions, be considered a restriction of competition by "object," meaning that competition authorities can view the practice as a violation of competition law without needing to prove adverse effects on the market. However, the CJEU emphasized that the concept of a "by object" restriction should be narrowly interpreted. To that end, it must be assessed whether such agreements cause a sufficient degree of harm to competition, taking into account their objectives, economic and legal context. Additionally, the CJEU clarified that while the concepts of "hardcore restrictions" under the VBER and restrictions of competition "by object" are not interchangeable, the classification of RPM as a hardcore restriction can and should be considered when analyzing the legal context of the agreement.

b. Regarding the second question, the CJEU emphasized that Super Bock imposed prices on its distributors through regular communications, either by emails or verbally, and had the ability to apply retaliatory measures in case of non-compliance. However, the CJEU stated that for an agreement to exist between Super Bock and the distributors, there must be a "concurrence of wills," regardless of the form in which it is expressed. This concurrence can be demonstrated through the terms of the distribution contract and the explicit or tacit acceptance of the minimum resale prices imposed by Super Bock. The CJEU highlighted that the distributors' compliance with the prices, despite their complaints, indicates their acquiescence. The final assessment, however, remains with the national courts referring the case, based on the specific facts. The existence of the agreement can be established through direct or indirect evidence, including "objective and consistent indicia," which suggest that Super Bock invited the distributors to apply the minimum resale prices and that the distributors complied.

c. Finally, in response to the third question, the CJEU reaffirmed that for an agreement to fall under Article 101 TFEU, it must affect trade between Member States. It recalls established case law stating that an agreement covering the territory of one or part of one Member State can still impact trade between Member States if there is a "sufficient degree of probability" that it may substantially influence trade to the detriment of the single market between Member States.

Accordingly, the Lisbon Court of Appeal, benefiting from the CJEU's guidance, will now evaluate the specific factual evidence provided by the Competition, Regulation, and Supervision Court (TCRS) to determine whether the agreements in question indeed constitute a violation of competition law. The TCRS had previously upheld the AdC's decision, confirming the existence of an infringement and the imposed fine.

Implications

The judgment mainly restates existing case law on established EU competition law principles. However, it emphasizes that there is no definitive list of practices that automatically violate EU competition law. Similar to US federal law, where RPM is not automatically considered unlawful but is analyzed under the "rule of reason," the Super Bock case confirms that EU competition authorities must demonstrate that a particular conduct is sufficiently harmful to competition, considering the economic and legal context. This applies even to practices classified as "hardcore restrictions" under the VBER, such as RPM, and should be taken into account by competition authorities in their assessments. Given the general skepticism towards vertical price fixing, the classification of RPM as a "hardcore restriction" likely contributes to its treatment as a restriction of competition "by object," which remains the prevailing norm in the EU and Member State precedents.

However, the key struggle will continue to be the determination of whether a specific practice constitutes an RPM "agreement," particularly in cases where the agreement appears to be neutral towards RPM but subsequently results from the parties' conduct. The existence of "concurrence of wills" regarding RPM may arise from a distributor's acquiescence to a supplier's coercive measures. The judgment does not provide detailed clarification on the element of "coercion." Similarly, regarding "acquiescence," the judgment missed an opportunity to provide more guidance, leaving it challenging to apply in practice due to limited court and EC guidance. Distributors may find themselves in a difficult position when a supplier requests them to follow specific prices, and the distributor, based on its own judgment, decides it is in their best interest to comply. What constitutes acquiescence and how to prove its absence remain open questions. Additionally, it is unclear how frequently a distributor would need to deviate from the imposed prices to demonstrate a lack of acquiescence.

Conclusion

The CJEU's judgment in the Super Bock case clarifies the interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU regarding RPM practices. The CJEU suggests that “hardcore violation” classification does not mean that an RPM practice violates competition “by object”, and rule of reason principle should be adopted when determining the harm of the conduct. It emphasizes the need to demonstrate the concurrence of wills between suppliers and distributors and provides flexibility in establishing the existence of an agreement through various forms of evidence. This ruling provides important guidance for competition law enforcement agencies and courts across Europe evaluating similar cases involving RPM practices.

References
  • C-211/22, Super Bock Bebidas SA, AN, BQ v Autoridade da Concorrencia, dated 23 June 2023.

All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.

Other Contents

A Recent CAS Decision in the Scope of European Union Competition Law: FIFA vs. Agents
Newsletter Articles
A Recent CAS Decision in the Scope of European Union Competition Law: FIFA vs. Agents

At the meeting of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) held on 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (“FFAR”). In the FFAR, various amendments have been made, such as the introduction of a maximum service fee limit that football agents are...

Competition Law 30.09.2023
The Relationship Between Economic Entity and Family Ties in Light of Competition Board Decisions
Newsletter Articles
The Relationship Between Economic Entity and Family Ties in Light of Competition Board Decisions

In competition law, it is important to accurately determine the concept of undertaking, especially in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the concept of economic entity aims to reveal the economic units covered by the undertakings. The relationship between the concept of economic entity and family ties comes...

Competition Law 31.07.2023
A New Breath of Fresh Air for Competition Investigations from the Constitutional Court
Newsletter Articles
A New Breath of Fresh Air for Competition Investigations from the Constitutional Court

In these days when the Competition Board (“Board”) frequently imposes administrative fines for preventing on-site inspections and both the Competition Authority (“Authority”) and undertakings take legal and technical measures regarding on-site inspections, a striking development has occurred. In its decision...

Competition Law 30.06.2023
Competition Law Practices in the Online Advertising Market
Newsletter Articles
Competition Law Practices in the Online Advertising Market

Online advertising has become an important source for businesses for promoting products and services and meeting consumers, as a result of the rapid development of information technologies and increase in the use of internet. Delivering targeted messages to consumers at the right time through the digital...

Competition Law 30.06.2023
Selective Distribution Systems
Newsletter Articles
Selective Distribution Systems

Selective distribution systems refer to a type of distribution system in which suppliers commit to selling the contracted goods or services directly or indirectly to distributors selected based on specified criteria, while the distributors commit not to sell the said goods or services to unauthorized...

Competition Law 31.05.2023
Final Sector Inquiry Report of the Competition Authority Regarding Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Retailing
Newsletter Articles
Final Sector Inquiry Report of the Competition Authority Regarding Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Retailing

Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing...

Competition Law 30.04.2023
Constitutional Court's Evaluation of the Competition Board's Authority to Conduct On-Site Investigations
Newsletter Articles
Constitutional Court's Evaluation of the Competition Board's Authority to Conduct On-Site Investigations

In the decision of the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court" or "Court") dated 09.11.2022, numbered 2020/67 E. 2022/139 K. (the "Decision"), the annulment of certain articles of the Law Amending the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Law No. 7246") was requested...

Competition Law 30.04.2023
Gun Jumping in Turkish Competition Law
Newsletter Articles
Gun Jumping in Turkish Competition Law

In Turkish competition law, certain types of mergers and acquisitions are subject to Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) approval in order to gain legal validity. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Board is competent to define mergers and acquisitions...

Competition Law 31.03.2023
The Problem of Returning the Data Obtained as a Result of Unlawful Notification in Light of the Competition Board Decision
Newsletter Articles
The Problem of Returning the Data Obtained as a Result of Unlawful Notification in Light of the Competition Board Decision

Recently, the Competition Board (the Board) had imposed administrative fines on banks and financial institutions for failing to respond to the request for information within the scope of a preliminary investigation.[i] The request for information that lays the groundwork for the administrative fine imposed by...

Competition Law 28.02.2023
The European Commission Accepts Amazon’s Commitments
Newsletter Articles
The European Commission Accepts Amazon’s Commitments

Amazon, a world-famous company, is an e-commerce company that operates the world’s largest online shopping platform. In the backstage, Amazon is a data-driven company whose retail decisions are mostly driven by automated systems, fueled by the relevant market data. That being said, Amazon has a dual...

Competition Law 31.01.2023
Deletion of WhatsApp Correspondence During On-Site Inspections
Newsletter Articles
Deletion of WhatsApp Correspondence During On-Site Inspections

The right to make on-site inspections is one of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) most important tools for revealing whether Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) has been violated. The effective use of this authority is quite important in terms of obtaining fruitful results from...

Competition Law 31.10.2022
Amendment on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce: “The Fire of Mount Doom”
Newsletter Articles
Amendment on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce: “The Fire of Mount Doom”

“Harese” is an interesting Arabic word. There is a thorn that camels love very much in the desert. The camel eats the thorn with great greed. So much so that, its mouth bleeds as it eats, but it doesn't stop eating. The taste of the thorn is mixed with the salty taste of its own blood. This mixed taste drives the camel...

Competition Law 30.09.2022
Turkish Competition Board Fines Digiturk
Newsletter Articles
Turkish Competition Board Fines Digiturk

Turkey’s leading pay television service provider, Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. (“Digiturk”), is frequently the subject of complaints made to the Competition Authority (“Authority”). In fact, the Competition Board (“Board”) issues a new decision about Digiturk almost every year. In these decisions...

Competition Law 30.09.2022
The French Competition Authority’s Decision on Meta’s Commitments
Newsletter Articles
The French Competition Authority’s Decision on Meta’s Commitments

The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...

Competition Law 31.07.2022
A Different Approach to Monetary Fines for Hindering On-Site Inspection: The Decision of the Ankara II. Administrative Court
Newsletter Articles
A Different Approach to Monetary Fines for Hindering On-Site Inspection: The Decision of the Ankara II. Administrative Court

While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...

Competition Law 31.07.2022
Hub and Spoke Cartel in Comparative Law
Newsletter Articles
Hub and Spoke Cartel in Comparative Law

The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...

Competition Law April 2022
The First Settlement Case in Turkish Competition Law
Newsletter Articles
The First Settlement Case in Turkish Competition Law

The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...

Competition Law April 2022
The E-Marketplace Platforms Sector Inquiry Final Report and What It Brings
Newsletter Articles
The E-Marketplace Platforms Sector Inquiry Final Report and What It Brings

Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...

Competition Law April 2022
Amendments Introduced to the Communique Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring Competition Board’s Approval
Newsletter Articles
Amendments Introduced to the Communique Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring Competition Board’s Approval

Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...

Competition Law March 2022
A New Glance at Online Sales: The Competition Board’s BSH Decision
Newsletter Articles
A New Glance at Online Sales: The Competition Board’s BSH Decision

The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...

Competition Law March 2022
E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 2: “Shahmaran’s Story”
Newsletter Articles
E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 2: “Shahmaran’s Story”

Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...

Competition Law February 2022
Online Sales Within The Framework Of Competition Law
Newsletter Articles
The Effects of the Recent Decision by the Turkish Competition Board on Market Chains and Their Suppliers
Newsletter Articles
The Effects of the Recent Decision by the Turkish Competition Board on Market Chains and Their Suppliers

During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...

Competition Law January 2022
On-Site Inspections in Light of the Recent Decisions of the Competition Authority
Newsletter Articles
On-Site Inspections in Light of the Recent Decisions of the Competition Authority

When the past decisions and the recent decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) are examined, a significant increase can be observed in the number of decisions where the Board found hindrance or obstruction of on-site inspections. This situation shows that...

Competition Law December 2021
The European Commission Fines Banks for Participating in a Forex Cartel
Newsletter Articles
The European Commission Fines Banks for Participating in a Forex Cartel

The European Commission began investigating the collusive behavior of Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclays, RBS, and HSBC in the Foreign Exchange (forex) spot trading market in 2019. With the recent press release dated 02.12.2021, the Commission announced that the case is now closed...

Competition Law December 2021
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Newsletter Articles
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Competition Law November 2021
E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 1: “Captain, an object is approaching”
Newsletter Articles
E-Marketplace Platforms Industry Review Preliminary Report Part 1: “Captain, an object is approaching”

Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...

Competition Law November 2021
Coca Cola’s Commitments in the Recent Competition Investigation
Newsletter Articles
Settlement Regulation Enters into Force
Newsletter Articles
Settlement Regulation Enters into Force
Competition Law July 2021
Competition Law Concerns Regarding Human Resources Practices
Newsletter Articles
The New Cartel Decision of the Competition Board
Newsletter Articles
The New Cartel Decision of the Competition Board
Competition Law September 2020
Amendments in the Law on the Protection of Competition
Newsletter Articles
Setting Legal Grounds for On-site Inspections
Newsletter Articles
Evaluation of COVID 19 Outbreak in Terms of Turkish Competition Law
Newsletter Articles
The File of Sahibinden.com; A Phoenix Story
Newsletter Articles
The File of Sahibinden.com; A Phoenix Story
Competition Law February 2020
Final and Interim Decisions of the Turkish Competition Board
Newsletter Articles
Second Stage in Facebook File
Newsletter Articles
Second Stage in Facebook File
Competition Law September 2019
European Commission’s Foreign Exchange Spot Trading Cartel Decisions
Newsletter Articles
Expected Second Half of Competition Authority’s 12 Banks Decision
Newsletter Articles
Turkish Competition Board’s Sahibinden.com Decision
Newsletter Articles
Recent Developments in Abuse of Dominance Concerning Online Platforms
Newsletter Articles
New Horizons in Competition Law; Diesel Emissions Scandal
Newsletter Articles
Recent Developments in the Right of Access to Files
Newsletter Articles
Cards are being redistributed in the Turkish Beer Market
Newsletter Articles
The Recent Motor Vehicles Insurance Decision of the Competition Board
Newsletter Articles
Selective Distribution Systems under the Light of Coty Decision
Newsletter Articles
Competition Authority’s Sector Inquiry Report on Television Broadcasting
Newsletter Articles
Excessive Pricing
Newsletter Articles
Excessive Pricing
Competition Law June 2017
Amazon Decision and E-Book Commitments
Newsletter Articles
Amazon Decision and E-Book Commitments
Competition Law June 2017
Umbrella Effect within the Framework of Private Competition Enforcement
Newsletter Articles
Tüpraş Decision and the Rebate Systems
Newsletter Articles
Tüpraş Decision and the Rebate Systems
Competition Law September 2016
Important Reason in Terms Of Share Transfer Restrictions
Newsletter Articles
Booking.com Decision
Newsletter Articles
Booking.com Decision
Competition Law January 2017
Price / Margin Squeeze
Newsletter Articles
Price / Margin Squeeze
Competition Law November 2016
Recent Problems in Electricity Distribution Sector: ELDER Decision
Newsletter Articles
Intellectual Property Rights As Capital in Kind
Newsletter Articles
Right To Request Information Of The Shareholders in Joint Stock Companies
Newsletter Articles
Affected Market
Newsletter Articles
Affected Market
Competition Law August 2015

For creative legal solutions, please contact us.