Case C-306/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa, Latvia) — ‘Visma Enterprise’ SIA v Konkurences padome (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Vertical agreements — Restriction ‘by object’ or ‘by effect’ — Exemption — Registration by the distributor of the potential transaction with the end user — Clause conferring on the distributor ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from registration — Exception — Objection by the user — Jurisdiction of the Court — Purely internal situation — National legislation consistent with the solutions adopted by EU law)
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, distributive trades, exclusive distribution agreement, inter-company agreement, jurisdiction, restriction on competition








C_2022024EN.01000601.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/6






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa, Latvia) — ‘Visma Enterprise’ SIA v Konkurences padome
(Case C-306/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Vertical agreements - Restriction ‘by object’ or ‘by effect’ - Exemption - Registration by the distributor of the potential transaction with the end user - Clause conferring on the distributor ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from registration - Exception - Objection by the user - Jurisdiction of the Court - Purely internal situation - National legislation consistent with the solutions adopted by EU law)
(2022/C 24/08)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Visma Enterprise’ SIA

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor under which the distributor who was first to register the potential transaction with the end user enjoys ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from the registration of that transaction, unless that user objects, cannot be classified as an agreement which has ‘as [its] object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, within the meaning of that provision, unless that agreement, in the light of its wording, its objectives and its context, can be regarded as posing a sufficient degree of harm to competition to be classified thus.
If such an agreement does not constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’ for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU, the national court must examine whether, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, namely, in particular, the economic and legal context in which the undertakings concerned operate, the nature of the goods or services affected, and the real conditions of the functioning and structure of the market in question, that agreement could be regarded as restricting competition in a sufficiently appreciable manner by reason of its actual or potential effects.










2.


Article 101(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor under which the distributor who was first to register the potential transaction with the end user enjoys ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from the registration of that transaction, unless that user objects, if it constitutes an agreement which has as its ‘object’ or ‘effect’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, may be exempted under paragraph 3 of that article only if it satisfies the cumulative conditions in that provision.










3.


Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of an agreement prohibited by that provision cannot be ruled out solely on the ground that the authority responsible for implementing that provision carried out a differentiated assessment concerning the attribution to the parties to that agreement of liability for the infringement.






(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.