Andrey Tenishev: cartel members in the Republic of Khakassia convicted – Court handed down iron up to 16 years for participants in anti-competitive agreements for theft and bribery It should be remembered that in 2018, the FAS recognized Russia a number of companies in violation of the law on (…) The SBE exempts all joint production and specialisation agreements (including proprietary intellectual property and proprietary procurement and supply and related joint distribution licences) under practical conditions: notwithstanding this risk, the Commission has established a relatively clear framework in which agreements can be concluded between competitors with production, purchase/sale/marketing or cooperation on research and development licences. These agreements are increasingly being used to provide cost-effective alternatives to mergers and/or to create other effective means to achieve business objectives through cooperation, and can be designed to minimize any risk of relevant competition from the outset. Where an anti-competitive agreement is not tax-exempt (individually or automatically as part of a class exemption), it is unenforceable and may result in normal competition penalties (including potentially high fines and the risk of third-party claims). Fas Russia Found Cartel In The Market of Orthopedic Products By entering into an anti-competitive agreement, six wholesale orthopaedic companies set up and maintain the highest price of products sold FAS Russia found Trives Trade LLC, MedExpert LLC, Optomed LLC, Maltri LLC, ORTO LLC (…) The Commission generally refers to these agreements as “marketing agreements”. This applies to the joint sale, where the parties agree on all commercial aspects related to the sale of the product, including the price. However, it also includes more limited forms of cooperation, such as distribution agreements. B (for example. B, a party appoints its competitor for the distribution of its products in a given territory), after-sales service, advertising or logistics. When evaluating marketing agreements, most of the general issues mentioned in item 3 will be relevant.

A few other points of the guidelines should be highlighted: companies can distort competition by cooperating with their competitors, setting prices or distributing the market, so that everyone has a monopoly on a part of the market. Anti-competitive agreements can be open or secret (for example. B cartels). They can be written (either in the form of a “business-to-business agreement” or in the decisions or rules of professional organisations) or be less formal agreements. These limited situations proposed by the Commission could be used to justify an information-sharing agreement which, on the face of it, is contrary to Article 101, paragraph 1, is not always applicable (most of the information exchanged between competitors is not published) or does not reflect the only or main reason for exchanging information (it seems unlikely that stronger competitors will want to reveal to their less successful competitors the reasons for their success in order to catch up). The Commission`s proposals highlight the difficulties in applying Article 101, paragraph 3, in this context. Competitors considering an information exchange agreement are therefore more likely to escape competition problems by ensuring that their agreement cannot be characterized as anti-competitive than to justify it as consumer-friendly. The potential for agreements between competitors, namely Article 101 of the TFUE, is high and reflects the principle set out in the guidelines, namely that competing firms must define their competition strategy independently of each other.

Average Rating: 4.5 out of 5 based on 158 user reviews.

Comments are closed.