Vertical Agreements Russia
Category : Uncategorized
See question 9. There is another concept of Russian competition law that can be applied without explicit (written or oral) explicit agreement, namely concerted action, but it applies only to the parallel behaviour of competing firms in the market and is therefore not very relevant to vertical restrictions. Under what circumstances do the cartel and abuse of dominance rules apply to agreements between agents and key agreements in which a company agrees to provide certain services on behalf of a supplier in exchange for a commission payment on the basis of sale? FAS Russia is not required to demonstrate anti-competitive effects in vertical agreements prohibited “in and of themselves,” including (i) resale price maintenance agreements and (ii) exclusive distributor (distribution, etc.). Agreements. In order to demonstrate other vertical agreements (which impose territorial restrictions, which aim at selective distribution, etc.), FAS must demonstrate to Russia the anti-competitive effects of these restrictions. However, in practice, the Authority does not always conduct an analysis to demonstrate the anti-competitive effects of certain types of vertical agreements. All agreements granting the right to use or transfer all intellectual property rights (licensing agreements, etc.) are excluded from the scope of competition law. In addition, all vertical agreements are permitted in the case of franchising agreements (which should be registered) and the exclusive distributor is authorized under vertical agreements to arrange the sale of products under the brand name of the wholesaler concerned (manufacturer). FAS Russia may balance potential damages and benefits to customers or efficiency gains, in accordance with Article 13 of the Competition Act. It provides that vertical agreements may be considered admissible if they: (i) do not eliminate competition in the relevant market, (ii) do not impose restrictions on parties or third parties that do not meet the objectives of these agreements and (iii) may result in a result or result: the purchaser undertakes not to purchase or limit alternative products from other suppliers.
, such a vertical restriction may be permitted under the category exemption, particularly if it is limited to three years, subject to the same general criteria as those set out in the previous paragraph. It should be noted that in the case of downstream exclusivity (i.e., the requirement for the purchaser not to sell goods competing with those of the supplier), this would constitute a vertical restriction which, as stated in Question 2, is expressly prohibited by competition law. However, since this prohibition has not been absolute since January 2012, such an obligation may now be more justified by the rule of reason, so that the eligibility conditions set out in the vertical class exemption should apply. (3) Russian law prohibits agency agreements from including territorial restrictions and customers. Based on established Russian judicial practices, distribution agreements are considered complex agreements, which are included both in a traditional manner and with a sales contract. As a result, the prohibition of territorial and customer restrictions may apply to distribution agreements and thus prevent the effective application of the rules in force in Russia. The Competition Act provides that the following two types of vertical restrictions are considered the most prejudicial and are protected by a rebuttable “in and of itself” presumption: (1) the obligation not to sell the products of a competing legal person; and (2) resale price. In recent years, however, we have seen that the Russian FAS tends to use the doctrine of the “rule of reason” more often than the “in itself” doctrine.
If an agreement with vertical restrictions is concluded between competitors, such an agreement may be subject to the mandatory notification requirement for joint ventures of competitors under the merger control rules.