Nina Korstenbroek

The Portuguese competition authority imposed a € 24 million fine on Portuguese beer supplier Super Bock  for imposing minimum retail prices on its (exclusive) distributors in the hospitality industry (restaurants, bars and cafes). Every month, these distributors received a list of minimum resale prices from Super Bock, which they in general all applied. If the distributors would not comply with those prices, Super Bock's terms of business provided for 'retaliatory' measures such as the removal of financial incentives (discounts) and the refusal to supply and replenish stocks Super Bock had a monitoring and tracking system in place, within which distributors were required to report relevant resale data to Super Bock. 

In this blog we highlight the latest developments in competition law.

In this blog we highlight the latest developments in competition law.

The Italian Competition Authority (the "AGCM") fined Unilever over €60 million for abusing its dominant position in the market for individually packaged ice creams. The distributors of these ice creams were required by Unilever to impose exclusivity clauses on their customers. Those customers (bars, cafes, swimming pools, sports clubs, etc.) were thus restricted from purchasing any ice creams other than those of Unilever. Unilever challenged the fine before the Italian court which in turn posed two preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice ("ECJ"). The ruling of the ECJ of 19 January 2023 provides food for thought for dominant producers.

Non-notifiable mergers may constitute an abuse of a dominant position. This is the position taken by the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") in its ruling of 16 March in the much-discussed Towercast case. The crucial precedent appears to be the 1973 Continental Can judgment, which held that the prohibition of abuse of dominance in Article 102 TFEU can also apply to concentrations. An important detail is that Continental Can dates from a time when the European Merger Regulation had not yet been adopted.. Nevertheless, the ECJ ruled, in line with the opinion of Advocate General Kokott, which had already caused quite a stir, that this case-law still applies.  

Sarah Beeston, Pim Jansen and Nina Korstenbroek have written again the Dutch chapter of the book Getting the Deal Through – Vertical Agreements. This is an international guide with contributions of local experts from several jurisdictions worldwide. The book describes how competition law rules are applicable to vertical agreements.

Read and download the Dutch chapter of the latest Vertical Agreements guide of Lexology GTDT, as updated by Sarah Beeston, Pim Jansen and Nina Korstenbroek. You can access the chapter by clicking on the link below.

Nike terminated an agreement with one of its distributors, the Italian company Action Sport, claiming that the latter did not adhere to Nike's Selective Retailer Distribution Policy. In 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam decided that Nike’s action was lawful. Action Sport subsequently appealed the decision. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal has now also found that within its selective distribution system, Nike can indeed prohibit authorised resellers from selling Nike products through non-authorised (e-)resellers, such as Amazon.