Any horizontal or green green agreement, for which no class exemption is granted, must be reviewed by the parties themselves to determine whether the agreement is anti-competitive. To support this approach, the European Commission has published guidelines (see guidelines on vertical restrictions) on the main factors to be considered. If none of the above criteria is met, an agreement with a vertical restriction may be reviewed in accordance with Article 101. There are a number of steps that need to be taken to determine whether and how section 101 can be applied to a vertical restriction. Competition issues can arise at different levels of the production, supply and distribution chain. However, the date on which they occur may affect the likelihood or seriousness of anti-competitive provisions. We are discussing here how competition law deals with both vertical agreements and, to a lesser extent, horizontal agreements. While the agreement in question may be subject to another EU group exemption, the category exemption does not apply to vertical agreements. Other common class exemptions include category exemption for motor vehicles, category exemption for technology transfer, category exemption for research and development, and category exemption for specialization agreements. a concerted agreement or practice between two or more companies, each of which, acting at another level of the production or distribution chain within the meaning of the agreement or concerted practice, refers to the conditions under which the parties can buy, sell or resell certain goods or services. If it is confirmed that the contracting parties act at different levels of trade within the meaning of an agreement and that the agreement has an “impact on trade”, the procedure for assessing the vertical regime covered by Article 101 of the EUSF is, overall, however, the Commission is highly selective in the selection of agreements for which it will provide informal guidelines and, given the vertical category exemption and vertical guidelines, it is unlikely that the Commission will issue individual guidelines for vertical restrictions. In general, the Commission believes that the parties are well placed to analyse the effects of their own behaviour.
The authors are not aware of a case in which the Commission has proposed informal guidance to the parties. To what extent is a private application possible? Can non-parties to vertically restricted agreements obtain declarable judgments or claims for omission and seek damages? Can the parties make their own claims? What remedial measures are available? How long should a company expect private execution? Among these measures that could be covered by these prohibitions under vertical agreements are: Article 101 does not apply to agreements between companies that are part of a “single economic entity”. To determine whether companies are part of the same `single economic entity`, EU courts have focused on the concept of autonomy in cases such as Viho/Commission. If companies do not enjoy real autonomy in determining their actions in the market, but carry out the instructions given to them by their parent company, they are considered to be part of the same economic entity as the parent company. However, the case law of the EU courts is not clear as to the degree of control necessary for one company to be considered linked to another. In some cases, with regard to vertical agreements, the Commission has not accepted the defence of a single economic entity. In the case of Gosme/Martell – DMP, for example, the Commission found that DMP, a 50-50 joint venture between Martell and Piper-Heidsieck, was a separate economic entity from Martell, so Article 101 applied to the vertical restrictions agreed between DMP and its 50% Martell shareholder. Are there general exceptions to cartel and abuse legislation