The definition of a commercial agent contract for the purposes of Article 101 is the financial or commercial risk borne by the representative for the activities for which he has been appointed as representative by the contracting authority (see judgments in Case T-325/01 of 15 September 2005, Daimler Chrysler v Commission); Case C-217/05 of 14 December 2006, Confederación Espanola de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v CEPSA and Case C-279/06, 11 September 2008, CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA v LV Tobar e Hijos SL.). In that regard, it is not necessary to assess whether the intermediary is acting for one or more contracting entities. Nor is the classification of their consent by the parties or national legislation an essential factor in that assessment. The need to qualify a treaty as a so-called commercial agent may arise in an international context, a situation that raises not only the question of the application of the qualification criteria, but also, perhaps more delicately, the question of their identification. A contract entitled (…) On 27 October 2020, the Autorité de la concurrence adopted a decision n° 20-D-15 rejecting as insufficiently justified the transfer of the travel agency Travel Planet France specialising in business travel and approved by IATA, which insufficiently justified the implementation of (…) Discussions on agency contracts have long focused on the distinction between “real” and “non-real” agents and who bears the risks between the client and the agent. Given that the literature on this distinction is extensive, the current article will focus on taking stock of the most recent cases in which contracting entities and/or agents have been held liable for anti-competitive conduct under Article 101(1) or 102 TFEU, in particular where the agreement has facilitated collusion or price control. In such cases, the liability of the procuring entity for the conduct of its enforcement agent is at stake. No market or activity is too small to be scrutiny by competition authorities and is subject to fines. Yes. It`s a widespread myth that competition law – or antitrust law, as it`s called – only applies to companies with high market shares and to large multinationals like Google and Facebook.
However, any price control, direct or indirect, is likely to constitute an infringement of competition law, unless the contractual agreement fulfils the strict `genuine agency` criteria established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (`the ECJ`). For the purposes of Article 101(1), the agreement shall be classified as a commercial agent contract where the authorised representative does not bear or bears only negligible risks concerning contracts concluded and/or negotiated on behalf of the contracting authority, market-specific investments in that field of activity and other activities to be exercised by the contracting entity on the same product contract. However, risks related to the agency service delivery activity in general, such as the risk that the agent`s income will depend on his or her success as an agent or general investments in premises or staff, for example, are not essential to this assessment. For the purposes of Article 101(1), a contract is therefore generally regarded as a commercial agent contract where ownership of the goods bought or sold does not belong to the intermediary or where the agent does not himself provide the contractual services and, if the agent: transparency and fairness are the characteristics of the relationship between the client and the commercial agent. At least that is how the regulation of the agency contract is understood, such as Article L. . . .