COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Unfair Trading Practices (UTP) - Overview tables on Member States’ transposition choices and enforcement activities Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Implementing the prohibition of unfair trading practices to strengthen the position of farmers and operators in the agricultural and food supply chain – State of play
Date: 2024-04-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, agri-foodstuffs, application of EU law, consumer protection, food industry, restriction on competition, supplier, supply chain, unfair terms of contract

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.4.2024  SWD(2024) 106 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Unfair Trading Practices (UTP) - Overview tables on Member States’ transposition choices and enforcement activities    Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Implementing the prohibition of unfair trading practices to strengthen the position of farmers and operators in the agricultural and food supply chain – State of play  {COM(2024) 176 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 

2.  Main elements of Directive (EU) 2019/633 ....................................................................... 3 

3.  Overview on transposition dates ......................................................................................... 5 

4.  Transposition choices ......................................................................................................... 6 

4.1.  Choice of the legislative instrument ............................................................................ 6 

4.2.  Scope of application and business size - overview ..................................................... 8 

4.3.  Prohibited UTPs (Article 3) - overview ...................................................................... 9 

4.3.1.  Payment delays - overview .............................................................................. 11 

4.3.2.  Cancelling orders at short notice – overview ................................................ 12 

4.4.  Enforcement measures and sanctions (Article 6) – overview ................................... 12 

4.5.  Stricter national practices (Article 9) – overview ..................................................... 14 

4.6.  Focus on prohibitions to sell or buy below production costs to re-sell at a loss or 
below purchase price or any other obligation to respect a certain price level ..................... 29 

5.  Aggregated overall data on Member States’ enforcement activities in 2022 and 2023 ... 30 

6.  Additional insights from the 2023 annual utp survey ....................................................... 32 

6.1.  Suppliers’ awareness of the existence of the UTP Directive ..................................... 32 

6.2.  Suppliers’ awareness of the existence of national enforcement authorities .............. 32 

6.3.  Suppliers’ main reasons for not raising an issue with a national enforcement 
authority ............................................................................................................................... 33 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member State abbreviations:  

Austria  

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Cyprus  

Czechia  

Germany  

Denmark  

Estonia  

Greece  

Spain  

Finland  

France  

Croatia  

Hungary  

Ireland  

Italy  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Latvia  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Sweden  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

AT  

BE  

BG  

CY  

CZ  

DE  

DK  

EE  

EL  

ES  

FI  

FR  

HR  

HU  

IE  

IT  

LT  

LU  

LV  

MT  

NL  

PL  

PT  

RO  

SE  

SI  

SK  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The present Staff Working Document (‘SWD’) provides a summary overview of the Member 
States’ transposition choices and enforcement activities of Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair 
trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain 
(‘the Directive’)1. It accompanies the report on “Implementing the prohibition of unfair trading 
practices to strengthen the position of farmers and operators in the agricultural and food supply 
chain – State of play” (‘the report’) and provides further details. 

The Directive was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 17 April 2019. The 
Directive  is  binding  on  all  27 Member  States  (‘MS’).  It  provides  for  a  minimum  level  of 
harmonisation by establishing a list of prohibited unfair trading practices (‘UTPs’) between 
buyers and suppliers in the agricultural and food supply chain. 

The present SWD covers information on the state of implementation in all 27 MS and provides 
information  on  a  selection  of  MS’  transposition  choices.  It  exclusively  refers  to  national 
provisions that are contained in the national laws transposing the UTP Directive, i.e. they do 
not refer to other provisions having been introduced in certain Member States through other 
legislative instruments and that may have a similar impact. 

On-going  modifications  and  reviews  of  national  laws  (either  as  a  consequence  of  the 
conformity checks by the Commission (COM) or for diverse other reasons) have been taken 
into  account  in  this  SWD  only  if  they  had  officially  been  notified  to  the  COM  via 
THEMIS/Directives before 1 March 2024. Moreover, it is worth underlining that compliance 
with the Directive of national provisions that maintain or introduce stricter rules than those laid 
down by the UTP Directive, or compliance with the rules on the functioning of the internal 
market, are not assessed by the COM in this SWD or in the context of the conformity check.2 

2. 

MAIN ELEMENTS OF DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/633  

The food supply chain is prone to the development of unfair trading practices (UTPs) 
due to the imbalances between small and large operators. The Directive provides for 
minimum  harmonisation  on  the  prohibited  UTPs  in  all  Member  States  (MS)  to 
protect farmers and smaller suppliers from the UTPs that had been identified as the 
most problematic. 

1.1. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

•  Protection of weaker suppliers against stronger buyers 
•  List of 16 targeted UTPs  regulated  at  EU level,  and possibility for MS to 

have a longer list of UTPs  

•  Enforcement by designated enforcement authorities 
•  Transposition  of  the  Directive  into  national  law  by  1  May  2021  and 
application six months later (1 November 2021) to new contracts (existing 

1 Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019  on unfair trading 
practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 
59. 
2 
Chapter%204-Compliance%20implementation%20and%20preparing%20proposals_0.pdf 

https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/a21336e2-2a7c-43d2-bb35-d4eee7aa4cd3_en?filename=BRT-2023-

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
contracts had to be brought in line within 12 months after publication of the 
transposition laws in the national Official Journal). 

1.2. SCOPE IN TERMS OF OPERATORS 

The  Directive  protects  any  supplier  of  agricultural  and  food  products  with  a 
turnover  of  up  to  EUR  350  million  with  differentiated  levels  of  protection 
provided below that threshold. This covers not only farmers, but also producer 
organisations and food industry below that threshold.   

Buyers who are stronger than the supplier, i.e. in a higher turnover category as 
defined by the Directive, cannot apply UTPs to their suppliers.   

1.3. PROHIBITED PRACTICES 

10  BLACK  UTPs  (prohibited,  whatever  the  circumstances,  the  supplier 
cannot agree to them, they are prohibited no matter what):  

•  Payments  later  than  30  days  for  perishable  agricultural  and  food 
products   
•  Payments later than 60 days for non-perishable agri-food products   
•  Short-notice cancellations of perishable agri-food products  
•  Unilateral contract changes by the buyer  
•  Payment for unrelated services  
•  Risk of loss and deterioration transferred to the buyer   
•  Refusal  of  a  written  confirmation  of  supply  agreements  by  the  buyer, 

despite request of the supplier  

•  Misuse of trade secrets by the buyer   
•  Commercial retaliation by the buyer   
•  Transferring the costs of examining customer complaints to the supplier  

6  GREY  UTPs  (prohibited  only,  if  not  agreed  beforehand  in  clear  and 
unambiguous terms between the parties):  

•  Buyer returns unsold products to the supplier  
•  Payment of the supplier for stocking, display and listing  
•  Payment of the supplier for promotion  
•  Payment of the supplier for advertising  
•  Payment of the supplier for marketing   
•  Payment of the supplier for staff of the buyer, fitting out premises  

MS can adopt national rules going beyond the Directive in terms of scope, e.g. 
protect  more  suppliers,  also  with  a  turnover  beyond  EUR  350  million  or 
introduce  additional  unfair  trading  practices  to  the  lists  of  black  and  grey 
practices. However, such measures cannot distort the internal market. 

1.4. ENFORCEMENT 

•  MS  have  designated  authorities  in  charge  of  enforcing  the  new  rules, 
including  the  ability  to  impose  fines  and  initiate  investigations  based  on 
complaints.   

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
•  The  Directive  protects 

the  confidentiality  of  complainants 

thereby 
addressing  the  complainant’s  fear  about  retaliation  from  the  buyer.  E.g.  a 
producer who wants to complain, can claim confidentiality (of identity and 
business  secrets)  when  he  addresses  the  enforcement  authority.  The 
complainant  can  also  ask  a  producer  organisation  of  which  he/she  is  a 
member to complain on his behalf.  

•  The  COM  has  set  up  a  “UTP  Enforcement  Network”  in  which  national 
enforcement authorities cooperate to discuss the application of the Directive, 
to exchange best practices, to discuss new cases and developments, and to 
share 
implementing  measures  adopted  and  on 
information  on 
enforcement practices. 

the 

1.5. EVALUATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

•  Art. 12 of the Directive requires an evaluation of this Directive to be carried 

out by 1 November 2025 to assess   

o 

o 

the effectiveness of the measures implemented at national level as 
well as   
the effectiveness of cooperation among the competent enforcement 
authorities.   

•  The evaluation is currently being carried out based, among others,  

o  on MS’ annual reports to the COM with regard to the application and 

enforcement of the laws under this Directive,  
o  on a study carried out by an external contractor,  
o  on annual surveys carried out across all Member States and targeting 
suppliers  covered  by  the  Directive  at  the  different  stages  of  the 
agricultural  and  food  supply  chain,  including  a  baseline  survey 
conducted before the implementation of the Directive. 

The evaluation will be accompanied by proposals if appropriate. 

3. 

OVERVIEW ON TRANSPOSITION DATES 

By December 2022 all MS had transposed the Directive. 

Member State  Date of the notification of complete transposition to the Commission 
AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 

13-01-2022 
02-02-2022 
05-10-2021 
29-12-2021 
09-12-2022 
19-10-2021 
20-12-2021 
27-10-2021 
12-11-2021 
23-12-2021 
19-10-2021 
09-09-2021 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 

26-10-2021 
08-06-2021 
28-09-2021 
 02-12-2021 
 15-07-2021 
 02-06-2021 
 07-10-2021 
 22-07-2021 
 17-11-2021 
 09-12-2021 
 28-10-2021 
 15-04-2022 
 08-10-2021 
 13-09-2021 
 20-07-2021 

The  following  link  contains  an  overview  of  the  national  transposition  measures  as 
communicated by the Member States to the Publications Office of the EU: Directive - 2019/633 
-  EN  -  EUR-Lex  (europa.eu).  This  SWD  provides  an  English  version  of  select  national 
provisions for clarity and ease of understanding. Only the original text of transposition laws as 
enacted by each respective Member State is considered authentic. 

4. 

TRANSPOSITION CHOICES 

4.1. 

Choice of the legislative instrument 

13 MS 
introduced  
new and 
separate 
legislation 

CY, DK, EE, EL, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE 

With the exception of IE, IT, PL and RO, these MS did not have national UTP rules 
beforehand. 

IT and PL abolished pre-existing legislation. 

IE integrated it with a legislative measure strictly corresponding to the text of the 
Directive (which enabled an expedite transposition proceeding).   

CY only relied on a general prohibition of abuse of economic dependence. 

The LT instrument partially overlaps with an existing piece of legislation, namely 
the Law on the Prohibition of Unfair Practices of Retailers of 22 December 2009, 
no. XI-626, which applies to retailers with significant market power and which, in 
the case of conflict, prevails over the transposition instrument. 

In  SE,  before  transposition,  UTPs  were  only  addressed  by  means  of  extending 
consumer protection to business-to-business relationships. 
AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LV, PT, SI, SK 

Among  those,  HU  submitted  pre-existing  legislation  without  any  addition  or 
modification resulting from the transposition process. 

14 MS 
amended 
pre-existing 
legislation or 
incorporated 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
CY, DK, EE, EL, IE, IT, LV, NL, HR, HU, LU, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK 

SK has formally qualified this piece of legislation as referring to unfair terms, in fact 
covering or including unfair practices within the concept of unfair terms. 

FI  formally  qualified  the  statutory  instrument  as  a  Food  Market Act  (providing 
additional rules on market regulation, such as those on agreements under Regulation 
(EU) No 1308/20133). 

BG introduced a new chapter (on UTPs in the agricultural and food supply chain) in 
its Competition Protection Act.  
CZ  amended  its  legislation  on  significant  market  power  and  abuse  thereof  in  the 
agrifood sector.  
BE integrated the transposition measures in the Code of Economic Law.  
FR supplemented provisions of the Commercial Code.  
DE amended its Agricultural Market Structure Act and the Act was renamed as ‘Act 
on  strengthening  agricultural  organisations  and  supply  chains’:  ‘Agricultural 
Organisation and Supply Chain Act - AgrarOLkG’ 
SI did the same as DE in regard of its Agriculture Act,  
ES amended its legislation on the functioning of the food chain.  
AT  amended  the  Federal  Act  on  Better  Local  Supply  and  Fairer  Competition, 
inserting a new Section on ‘Unfair trading practices related to the sale of agricultural 
and food products’. 

All MS except LV, FR and PT 

LV’s provisions also include prohibitions applicable to non-food product retailers. 
FR and PT’s transposition are partially based on pre-existing provisions that have 
a general (as opposed to an agri-food sector) scope. 

it into a 
wider 
legislative 
instrument 
18 MS 
qualified the 
transposition 
measure as 
legislation on 
UTPs, 
without any 
reference 
(within this 
formal 
qualification) 
to market or 
competition 
law 
Other 

24 MS have 
adopted 
sector-
specific 
legislation 
exclusively 
applying to 
the 
agricultural 
and food 
sector 

3 OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2. 

Scope of application and business size - overview 

TRANSPOSITION REGARDLESS OF BUSINESS SIZE 
6 MS 
transposed 
regardless of 
business size 

CY, EE, ES, FR, IT, SK 
While maintaining the general application of the implementing legislation regardless 
of business size, some of these MS have referred to business size to provide for some 
exceptions or variations. E.g., in  
CY payment deadlines vary based on business size in the case of products delivered 
on a regular basis by suppliers of grapes for the production of wine to buyers with an 
annual turnover of less than EUR 2 000 000;  
ES  legislation  does  not  apply  to  hotel,  restaurant  and  catering  businesses  with  a 
turnover of less than EUR 10 million; and businesses engaging in accommodation 
services with turnover of less than EUR 50 million. 

BG, IE, LU, MT, NL, RO 

TRANSPOSITION TAKING BUSINESS SIZE INTO ACCOUNT (TO SOME EXTENT) 
6 MS 
followed the 
approach of 
the Directive 

They target relationships between suppliers whose annual turnover is lower than a 
given threshold, and buyers whose annual turnover is higher than the same threshold. 

2 MS 
followed an 
approach 
based on that 
of the 
Directive  

PL, SI 

SI limited the scope of application to businesses with “significant market power”  

PL to businesses with a “significant disproportion in economic potential” and then 
defined the power or disproportion having regard to relative business size. However, 
among these, only SI has used the size categories of the Directive to include the same 
types of relationships without further assessment4.  

Lastly, PL has used the same size categories as the ones of the Directive but only to 
establish a presumption and not a conclusive definition without further assessment5.   

13 MS 
enlarged the 
scope on 
business size 
to varying 
degrees 

AT, EL, BE, CZ, DE, DK, FI, HR, HU, LT, LV, PT, SE 
EL has lowered the threshold of the first category of suppliers from EUR 2 million 
to EUR 500 000. 
AT has added a sixth category to include suppliers with a turnover of more than EUR 
350 million and no more than EUR 1 bn in relationship with buyers of more than 
EUR 5 bn turnover. 
BE has only taken the suppliers’ size into account, extending the application of the 
legislation for all buyers to suppliers with an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 
350 million.  However,  there  is  no  turnover  limit  for  producer  organisations 
recognised under Article 152 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 

4 “A buyer shall be deemed to have significant market power: 1. if the annual turnover (…)”. 
5 “Significant disproportion in economic potential in the case of practices involving the unfair use of contractual 
advantage by buyers against suppliers shall be presumed to exist between (…)”. The question on whether the 
presumption is absolute or rebuttable is critical  to understand the scope of application of Polish legislation in 
respect  of  the  one  demanded  by  the  Directive.  Indeed,  if  the  presumption  was  absolute,  then  the  scope  of 
application of Polish legislation would be wider than the one envisaged by the Directive (being still possible to 
prove that the same disproportion exists out of the legislative size categories). By contrast, if the presumption 
was rebuttable, then some relationships, that would fall within the Directive’s scope of application, would fail to 
be covered by the Polish national legislation whenever counter evidence is provided with regard to the existence 
of the significant disproportion.    

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CZ  has  followed  the  threshold  approach  in  the  Directive  and  introduced  also 
additional categories of buyers with an annual turnover in the territory of the Czech 
Republic exceeding CZK 5 billion (approx. EUR 197 million) irrespective of the size 
of the supplier.  
HR, LV and SE have only taken the buyers’ size into consideration and apply the 
legislation to all buyers whose total annual turnover is at least (for HR) or exceeds 
(for SE and LV) EUR 2 million. 

FI has taken the same approach to only take into account the buyer’s size, however, 
its legislation does not apply if the supplier’s turnover exceeds that of the buyer and, 
in any case, if it exceeds EUR 350 million and the buyer’s turnover is greater.  
DE  applies  the  Directive’s  thresholds,  but  a  wider  scope  has  been  temporarily 
introduced for the sales of some food and agricultural products. 
LT applies the extension of scope only with regard to the provisions on late payments. 
It applies to all buyers and benefits suppliers whose turnover does not exceed EUR 
350 million.  
DK, HU and PT apply business size only with regard to certain UTP prohibitions, 
whereas all other rules apply regardless of business size. For PT, the Directive’s size 
categories only affect the scope of application of payment terms, whereas for other 
UTPs  size  does  not  matter.  In  DK,  the  Directive’s  UTP  prohibitions  apply  to  all 
transactions  irrespective  of  the  turnover  of  the  businesses  and  their  relative 
bargaining power, except for payment terms. 

4.3. 

Prohibited UTPs (Article 3) - overview 

LT, SE 

DK, IE, LU, MT, NL 

NO EXTENSION OF RULES 
5 MS 
transposed 
without any 
extension of 
the rules 
2 MS’ 
transposition 
mainly 
coincided 
with the 
Directive 
except for a 
few stricter 
prohibitions 
GENERAL CLAUSES (to be understood as clauses allowing for the assessment of wider 

LT introduced an obligation for written sales contracts. 

imbalances in the contractual relations between parties of a transaction and/or related services) 

11 MS 
introduced a 
general 
clause (10 in 
addition to 
the UTPs 
listed in the 
Directive, CZ 
as part of its 
“black 
practices”) 

CZ, DE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SI 
HR  and  LV included  a  general clause  prohibiting  unfair  practices  in the  light  of 
general principles. 
DE  stipulated  a  general  prohibition  on  using  UTPs  to  exploit  asymmetrical 
economic relations, but exclusively applied this prohibition to the practices listed in 
the Directive.   
CZ:  the  amended  legislation  prohibits  negotiating  or  enforcing  contractual  terms 
that create a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the contracting 
parties to the detriment of the supplier.  
ES: the Food Chain legislation already established general principles on commercial 
relationships, in addition to the general principles under civil law. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IT: the transposing legislation, as well as the repealed one, include general principles 
of transparency, good faith and fairness in the field of contract terms and business 
practices.  
PL provides for a general prohibition of the unfair use of contractual advantage. 
RO provides a general clause by means of definition of unfair commercial practices 
as those that are contrary to good commercial practices, good faith and fair dealing 
and that are unilaterally imposed by one commercial partner to another.  
SI  prohibits  the  abuse  of  significant  market  power  as  a  form  of  exploitation  of 
counterparty contrary to good business practice.  

Moreover, some MS have general clauses in the field of unfair commercial practices 
or competition law. This is the case, e.g., for  
FR, whose Commercial Code already contained general clauses applicable in the 
relevant field;  
PT, whose pre-existing general scope legislation, still applicable in the field of the 
application  of  the  Directive,  demands  transparency  and  balance  in  commercial 
relations.  
Whether  general  clauses  may  be  relevant  to  prohibit  UTPs  when  these  are  not 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  transposing  legislation  is  a  question  that  should  be 
addressed in view of their concrete application by national courts and administrative 
authorities.  

GREY, BLACK AND ADDITIONAL PRACTICES 
All MS used 
the list of 
prohibited 
practices 
All MS 
except one 
followed the 
distinction 
between 
“grey” and 
“black” 
practices 

Only  HU  provides  for  a  single  (‘black’)  list  and  explicitly  bans  a  supplier  from 
validly consenting upfront to the covered trading practices.  
HU  relies  on  a  previously  adopted  legislative  instrument  without  any  specific 
modifications  being  made  in  the  course  of  the  Directive’s  transposition.  Most 
practices  included  in  the  Directive  are  covered,  though  are,  in  part,  defined 
differently; some of these are affected by wider or more stringent prohibitions.  

This  partly  applies  to  FR,  where  only  some  practices  have  been  specifically 
regulated by the transposition legislation, whereas others may be covered by general 
clauses of wider application;  

Where ‘grey lists’ are used, MS impose transparency requirements concerning the 
type  of  information  to  be  provided  to  the  supplier  in  order  to  justify  a  ‘grey 
practice’6.  

CY: all UTPs are moved to black for fruits and vegetables  
CZ, DE, FR, LV, SK: return of unsold products;  
FR, HR, LV: charges for fitting out premises; 
FR, LV, RO: charges for stocking, displaying and listing   

AT, BG, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK. 

8 MS have 
moved “grey 
“list practices 
into the 
“black” list 
16 MS added 
practices to 
the “black” 
list 

6 Among these, CZ only requires that the practice is agreed in writing. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BG, EE, HR, LV, RO, SK. 

CY, ES, IT, PL, SK 

6 MS added 
practices to 
the “grey” list 

5 MS prohibit 
some of the 
practices for 
both buyer 
and supplier, 
e.g. 
commercial 
retaliation 

4.3.1.  Payment delays - overview 

AT, CY, DE, DK, EL, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, SI. 

Those MS follow the provisions of the UTP Directive by establishing a 30-day term 
for perishable product sales and a 60-day term for non-perishable product sales. 

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PERISHABLE AND NON-PERISHABLE PRODUCT SALES 
16 MS 
distinguish 
between 
perishable 
and non-
perishable 
product sales 
11 MS apply 
stricter 
payment 
delays 

BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, HU, LT, PT, RO, SE, SK  

RO has reduced to 14 days the term for payment for perishable products and to 30 
days the one for all other products. 
BG, CZ, EE and SE have introduced a single 30-day term for both perishable and 
non-perishable product sales. 
FI  has  reduced  to  14 days  the  term  for  payment  for all  products,  but has  made  it 
possible, for non-perishable products to have a longer term of up to 30 days to be 
agreed in the contract; an even longer term can be agreed in clear and unambiguous 
terms  upon  request  of  the  supplier:  30  days  for  perishable  and  60  days  for  non-
perishable products. 
BE, HU and SK do not distinguish between perishable and non-perishable products; 
BE and HU apply a 30-day payment term to all agricultural and food products. For 
HU, however, a 15-day term applies if the supplier fails to provide a correctly-issued 
invoice within 15 days after the delivery of goods. 
For SK the rule is generally more stringent: a 15-day term applies from the date of 
the correctly-issued invoice.  
LT  applies  stricter  provisions  on  late  payments,  i.e.  where  agricultural  and  food 
products are sold by suppliers with an annual turnover below EUR 350 million. 
PT confirms the 30 days term for the payment of perishable products but in addition, 
has established an alternative term of either 30 or 60 days for non-perishable products 
depending  on  the  relative  business  size  and  the  specific  sector;  buyers  in  the 
hospitality sector are always subject to the 60 days term for non-perishable products. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3.2.  Cancelling orders at short notice – overview 

24 MS include the 
30-day period as a 
minimum standard 

6 MS empower the 
responsible 
Ministry/Government 
to set periods of less 
than 30 days for 
specific sectors in 
duly justified cases 
4 MS introduce other 
provisions 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI  

Some  of  them,  however,  have  not  entirely  followed  the  wording  of  the 
Directive’s provision with regard to the wider requirement prohibiting any 
late  cancellation  (though  filed  earlier  than  30  days  from  delivery),  this 
indicating  ‘at such short notice that a supplier cannot reasonably be expected 
to find an alternative means of commercialising or using those products’.  

Conversely,  in  RO  a  stricter  rule  applies  to  the  delisting  of  private  label 
products: in this case, cancellation is deemed unfair if filed less than 60 days 
from delivery.  

BE, DK, FR, IE, IT, SE 

Under Article 3(1)(b), those MS empower the responsible Ministry (or the 
Government in the case of SE) to set periods of less than 30 days for specific 
sectors in duly justified cases. 

CY: The Council of Ministries is able to adopt implementing regulations in 
respect of transposition (which may include regulatory power in the field of 
cancellation periods).  

FR has introduced two shorter periods with regard to wholesalers (24 hours) 
and for fresh fruits and vegetables (3 days, unless the products are sold under 
a private label in which case 6 days apply).  

HU  has  a  different  structure,  literally  referring  to  changes  rather  than 
cancellation; no reference is made to a specific period for the advance notice.  

SK: All  buyers  are  prohibited  from  not  fulfilling  contractual  obligations 
without legal justification.   

4.4. 

Enforcement measures and sanctions (Article 6) – overview 

ALL 

FINANCIAL SANCTIONS 
27 MS provide 
financial 
sanctions 
THRESHOLDS FOR FINANCIAL SANCTIONS 
Range of 
variation 
between 
minimum and 
maximum, 
where 
determined 

Minimum amounts range from EUR 5 (DE) to EUR 5 000 (SI). 
Maximum amounts range from EUR 2 329,37 (MT) to EUR 2 500 000 (PT). 

In some cases the maximum amount is determined on the basis of the infringing 
party’s turnover (also in these cases percentages differ, going from 0.2% (LV) to 
10% (CZ, HU, IT and NL)). 

In other cases it is calculated as a percentage of: 
(i) 
(ii) 

the purchase price (IT, SK) 
the charges imposed on the supplier (SK), or 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 MS 
provide 
minimum 
thresholds 
24 MS provide 
maximum 
thresholds 
14  MS  specify 
the  criteria  and 
factors involved 
in  determining 
the  amount  of 
the  sanction  in 
specific 
circumstances. 

2 MS included 
explicitly the 
principle of 
effective, 
proportionate 
and dissuasive 
penalties 

REMEDIES 
17 MS use 
some type of 
penalty to deter 
non-compliance 
with 
injunctions 
(astreintes 
type) 

(iii) 

the profit made by the infringing party in the transaction affected by the 
unfair practice (IT, MT). 

BE, BG, ES, IT, LV, LT, LU, HU, PT, RO, SI. 

All except DK, FI, SE. 

AT, BE, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FI, HR, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK 

Criteria and factors involved in determining the amount include the nature of the 
violation, its duration, and the extent to which the consequences were harmful 
(criteria vary among MS). 

LU, LT 

EL legislation refers to proportionality and deterrence, but not to effectiveness, 
when  regulating  the  administrative  authority’s  power  to  identify  the  applicable 
measures, whereas 

FI  legislation  refers  to  the  need  for  reasonableness  in  determining  financial 
sanctions  but  not  to  the  other  principles.  FI  also  applies  proportionality  to 
injunctive measures but only on trade secret infringements7.   

BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, FI, FR, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK. 

• 

Similar  to  injunctions,  national  laws  transposing  the  Directive  have  introduced 
other measures among those that may be enacted by administrative enforcement 
authorities: 
• 

 ‘warnings’ under BE law can be issued to companies with a specific time 
limit to comply. 
 ‘corrective measures’, aimed at eliminating the unlawful state of affairs 
and setting a reasonable time limit for their performance, under CZ law.  
 ‘precautionary measures’ under ES, LU and PT law; 

• 
•  HU measures, enabling the administrative authority to prohibit the trader 
from applying the provisions of the standard service agreement if (i) it is 
not  clearly  worded,  (ii) the  service  or  consideration  is  not  specified,  or 
(iii) the fee charged is not proportionate to the costs; 
 ‘compliance notices’ under IE law; 

• 
•  Latvian measures, allowing to use alternative options for preventing the 

violation without initiating a formal case. 

While  civil  remedies  are  rarely  mentioned  in  transposing  acts,  there  are  some 
exceptions: 

•  Some MS provide for contract terms to be nullified: AT, BE, DE, EE, ES, 

FR, HU, IT, PT, SI;  

•  others provide for restitutionary measures:  

7 The information on the French law is currently unavailable. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
FI (only in case of infringement of trade secrets) and  
IE (restitution of undue charges). 

•  others provide for compensatory measures:   

FI (only in case of infringement of trade secrets),  
FR,  MT  (where  damages  are  liquidated  by  the Administrative  Review 
Tribunal), 
RO (where losses suffered by suppliers due to buyers’ UTP make the latter 
liable and obliged to pay an amount equal to three times those losses). 

COMMITMENTS 
6 MS clearly 
regulate 
commitments 

BE, BG, CZ, HR, HU, PL 

Their  approval  by  the  enforcing  authority  normally  excludes  a  finding  of  an 
infringement  and  a  penalty,  unless  the  commitment  is  not  fulfilled.  In  BE  the 
acceptance or refusal of the commitment does not prevent further administrative 
or criminal enforcement.  A different type of infringers’ commitments is regulated 
under  Romanian  law,  providing  for  a  possible  reduction  of  fines  when  the 
infringer clearly and unequivocally recognises liability and proposes measures to 
remove the causes of the infringement. 

4.5. 

Stricter national practices (Article 9) – overview 

Member States’ additional practices (NB: only the original text is authentic)  
AT 

Additional “black” practices:  
1.  Not  to  discriminate  between  suppliers  in  a  situation  of  economic 

BE 
BG 

CY 

imbalance between supplier and buyer.  

2.  Unless justified, the buyer cannot forbid the supplier the direct marketing 

of the products.  
No additional practices. 
Additional “black” practices:  
1.  A prohibition or restriction imposed by the buyer on the supplier under 
the contract to offer or purchase goods or services to or from third parties. 
2.  A  prohibition,  restriction  or  sanctions  imposed  by  the  buyer  on  the 
supplier  under  the  contract  to  provide  the  same  or  better  commercial 
terms to third parties. 

3.  Unilateral  termination  of  the  agreement  by  the  buyer  without  proper 
justification or termination without a notice given in a reasonable time 
that  is  sufficient  for  the  supplier  to  cover  at  least  investment  costs, 
including in view of previous business relations between the parties to 
the agreement.  

➢  As  for  the  UTP  on  unfair  shift  of  risk,  the  law  adds  also  "missing 

quantities".  

Additional “grey” practices: 
1.  The  buyer  requires  the  supplier  to  cover  the  cost  of  transport  and/or 

logistics.  

2.  The  buyer  requires  the  supplier  to  retroactively  decrease  the  price  of 
products either directly or by means of unreasonable discounts, bonuses 
and charges or service delivery.  

➢  As  for the  UTP  on  charges  for  fitting  out  premises, "maintenance"  of 

premises is added too. 
Additional “black” practices: 
1.  The buyer keeps or places a supplier’s agricultural and food products in 

another supplier’s packaging or transport containers. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  The  buyer  retains  reusable  packaging  or  transport  containers  for 
agricultural and food products, which belong to the supplier, for more 
than 30 days, after the date of the delivery of the products as stated on 
the sales invoice. 

3.  The  supplier  places  agricultural  and  food  products  in  packaging  or 

transport containers of another supplier. 

4.  The supplier does not issue invoices for agricultural and food products, 
at the time of the delivery and respectively the buyer holds agricultural 
and food products without invoice. There is an exception for products 
for which, in order to set the payable amount, a laboratory analysis is 
required. For those products the invoice should be issued within 10 days. 
The issuance of invoice is not compulsory when agricultural  and food 
products delivered to Preparation and Packaging Stations. 

CZ 

Additional “black” practices: 

1.  Negotiating or enforcing contractual terms that create a significant 
imbalance in the rights and obligations of the contracting parties to 
the detriment of the supplier. 

2.  Unequal  treatment  of  the  supplier  involving  the  negotiation  or 
enforcement of different contractual conditions for the purchase or 
sale  of  agricultural  or  food  products  or  the  provision  of  related 
services under comparable performance, without a justifiable reason 
3.  Tying the conclusion of a purchase or sale contract for agricultural 
or food products or the provision of related services to the condition 
of purchasing additional services. 

4.  Negotiating  a  price  that  will  result  in  the  tax  document  for  the 
payment of the price for the purchase or sale of agricultural or food 
products or the provision of related services not containing the final 
price after all agreed discounts from this price, except for pre-agreed 
quantity discounts. 

5.  Negotiating or enforcing compensation for a penalty imposed by the 
supervisory  authority  on  the  buyer  with  significant  market  power 
against the supplier, without the supplier causing the penalty to be 
imposed by a breach of its obligation. 

6.  Conducting an audit or other form of control of the supplier by the 
buyer with significant market power or a person authorised by them, 
including the demand for analyses of agricultural products or food 
products at the expense of the supplier. 

7.  Falsely  indicating the  country  or  place  of  origin  of  agricultural  or 
food products or falsely labelling the country or place of origin of 
one  or  more  components  of  an  agricultural  or  food  product  that 
constitutes more than 50% of that product or item. 

8.  Requiring the supplier to cover the costs of discounts on agricultural 
or food products fully or partially sold by the buyer as part of the 
buyer's  promotional  campaign  if  the  buyer  does  not  specify  the 
period and provide the anticipated quantity of products to be ordered 
with a discount before the start of the promotional campaign. 

9.  Conditioning deliveries on the use of third-party services, the terms 

and price of which are determined by the buyer. 

10.  Failure to comply with the written form of the contract or failure to 
negotiate the mandatory contract terms or failure to provide one copy 
of the contract to the supplier. 

11.  Claiming or receiving of a payment, discount or other consideration 
of which the amount, subject matter and extent of the consideration 
to be given for the payment, discount or other consideration have not 
been agreed in writing before the supply or  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
DE 
DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

processing of the agricultural or food products or the provision of the 
associated services to which the payment, discount or  
other  consideration 
relates  has  commenced  or  adequate 
consideration has not been given for the payment, discount or other  
consideration. 

CZ  has  a  clause  as  part  of  the  additional  black  practices  allowing  the 
enforcement authority to assess wider imbalances in the contractual relations 
between the parties. 
No additional practices. 
No additional practices. 
However, DK distinguishes into 2 Articles the situation of regular and one-
off delivery. For both situations, it also regulates the situation that the supplier 
has more than EUR 350 million turnover, which is a situation not covered by 
the Directive. In these situations the buyer is supposed to pay after 60 days. 
Additional “grey” practices: 
1.  Requires the seller to use only certain types, shapes and sizes of transport 
packaging, unless otherwise provided for in the legislation governing the 
handling of the agricultural products or foodstuffs. 

Additional “black” practices: 
1.  The  buyer  obliges  the  seller  in  writing  or  orally  to  sell  quantities  of 
products  to  it,  without  at  the  same  time  being  bound  to  purchase  the 
products. 

Additional “black” practices: 
1.  Non-compliance  with  the  general  obligation  of  concluding  written 

contracts register (Article 8) 

2.  Non-compliance by the buyer with the obligation to register contracts in 
a  digital  centralised  register  of  contracts  managed  by  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture (Article 11a) 

3.  Promotional activities that mislead the consumer as to the actual price 
and image of food and food products, which could harm the consumer’s 
perception of the quality or value of those products, shall not be agreed. 
For  the  purposes  of  the  analysis  of  such  conduct  by  the  competent 
authorities, account  shall  be  taken  of the  purchase  price  set  out in the 
food contract. To this end, operators must clearly identify their price in 
advertising information, posters and purchase tickets, so that it cannot 
give rise to misunderstandings, in such a way as to give the consumer 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  scope  of  the  promotional  activity  (Article 
12a(3)). 

4.  In  order  to  avoid  the  destruction  of  the  value  in  the  food  chain,  each 
operator of the food chain shall pay the immediately preceding operator 
a  price  equal  to  or  greater  than  the  cost  of  production  of  that  product 
actually incurred or borne by that operator. Accreditation shall be carried 
out in accordance with the means of proof admitted to the law (Article 
12b(1)). 

5.  In  order  to  protect  the  marketing  capacity  of  primary  producers, 
operators making the final sale of food or food products to consumers 
may not charge or offer a retail price below the actual purchase price of 
that price. Failure to comply with this provision shall be considered as 
unfair sale. Loss-making sales to the public of perishable food or food 
that are close to their expiry shall not be regarded as unfair provided that 
clear information is provided to consumers. Under no circumstances may 
joint offers or gifts to purchasers be used to avoid the application of this 
provision.  An  operator  making  the  final  sale  of  the  product  to  the 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
consumer may under no circumstances pass on to any of the previous 
operators its business risk arising from its commercial policy on prices 
offered to the public (Art 12 b (2) - (5)). 

6.  The criteria for the management of trademarks must be predetermined 
and prevent unfair treatment, such as the exploitation by an undertaking 
of the situation of economic dependence in which its client or supplier 
companies  may  find  themselves,  as  provided  for  in  the  relevant 
legislation.  Operators  shall  also  act  in  good  faith  in  marketing  the 
relevant innovations of their suppliers‘ food products. (Article 14) 

Additional “grey” practices8: 
7.  Prohibition of additional payments, except if linked to the risk of listing 
new  products  or  the  partial  financing  of  promotional  services  for  a 
product as reflected in the final price per unit, as long as these have been 
agreed upon by the parties in writing, accompanied by a description of 
the consideration offered in relation to such payments (Article 12(2)). 
8.  Non-compliance  with  the  rules  governing  agreements  on  promotional 
activities  (Article  12a(2)),  which  shall  contain  information  regarding 
deadlines (start and end dates), transfer prices, volumes and other issues 
of interest, as well as promotion aspects relating to the procedure, type, 
development, geographical coverage and evaluation of the outcome of 
the procedure (Article 12a(2)). 

9.  Food contracts shall specify in writing the information to be provided by 
the  parties  for  the  effective  fulfilment  of  their  respective  contractual 
obligations, as well as the time limit for the delivery of such information, 
which  must  in  any  case  be  proportionate  and  justified  on  objective 
grounds relating to the subject-matter of the contract, without prejudice 
to the application of the antitrust rules. Under no circumstances may an 
operator of the chain require any form of obtaining, using or disclosing 
business secrets from another operator, unless this is stated in the written 
contract in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. 
Business secrets obtained in the process of negotiation or execution of a 
food contract shall be used exclusively for the purposes for which they 
were provided, with due regard to the confidentiality of the information 
transmitted or stored. Likewise, no information on a developing product 
or  on  upcoming  launches  may  be  required  under  any  circumstances. 
Operators  may  not  require  or  disclose  business  secrets  from  other 
operators  and,  in  particular,  documents  enabling  such  commercial 
information to be verified.’ 

Additional “black” practice: 
1.  The buyer returns unsold agricultural and food products to the supplier 
without  paying  for  those  unsold  products  or  without  paying  for  the 
disposal  of  those  products.  However  returns  are  accepted  if  they  are 
agreed  in  clear  and  unambiguous  terms  for  products  which  have  not 
been in supplier’s assortment beforehand the agreement lasts for up to 
three months. 
No additional practices. 
Additional “black” practices: 
(Article 4): 
1.  It  shall  be  forbidden  for the  buyer  to take  advantage of  its  significant 
bargaining power over its suppliers by imposing unfair trading practices. 

FI 

FR 
HR 

8 The additional grey practices introduced by the Spanish legislator lay down the limits and conditions for agreements between 
the parties pertaining to certain promotional activities or the sharing of certain commercial information. Failure to comply 
with the limits and conditions laid down by the legislator for such agreements will result in an infringement. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  The  following  shall  be  regarded  as  unfair  trading  practices  in  the 
agricultural and food supply chain – which includes all actors involved 
in the production, processing and/or marketing of agricultural and food 
products – which are imposed on suppliers by taking advantage of the 
buyer’s significant bargaining power:  

• 

the  absence  of  a  written  agreement  between  the  buyer  and 
supplier,  or  the  existence  of  a  written  agreement  between  the 
buyer and supplier which was not drawn up in accordance with 
the provisions of this Act, or obligations imposed on the supplier 
which are not provided for in the written agreement between the 
buyer and supplier;  

•  payments  which  are  not  clearly  indicated  or  specified  on  an 

invoice or sales receipt;  

•  general business terms and conditions of the buyer which are not 

• 

in accordance with the provisions of this Act;  
the possibility for the buyer to terminate the agreement with the 
supplier unilaterally, in non-written form or without giving well-
founded reasons for terminating the agreement;  

•  disproportionately high contractual penalties compared with the 

value and significance of the object of the agreement 

(Article 5): (Exceptions under Article 6 (1) and (2)) 
3.  The  agreement  between  the  supplier  and  buyer  shall  be  concluded  in 
writing  before  the  agricultural  or  food  product  is  delivered  and  shall 
contain  all  the  provisions  essential  to  the  contractual  parties’  business 
relations, in particular provisions on 
• 

the price of the agricultural or food product and/or the method for 
setting, i.e. calculating, the price;  
the quality and type of agricultural or food product to be delivered to 
the buyer; 
the  conditions  and  time-limits  for  payment  for  the  agricultural  or 
food product to be delivered;  
the conditions and time-limits for the delivery of the agricultural or 
food products covered by the agreement;  
the place of delivery of the agricultural or food product identifiable 
and/or identified by the address of the place of delivery, and  

• 

• 

• 

• 

4. 

the  duration  of  the  agreement.  The  price  of  the  agricultural  or  food 
product referred to in point 1 of paragraph 1 of this Article may be set as 
a fixed amount, and may be set and/or calculated by combining various 
factors,  which  shall  be  set  out  in  the  agreement  and  may  include,  for 
example, market indicators reflecting changes in market conditions, the 
quantities  delivered  and  the  quality  or  composition  of  the  agricultural 
products delivered. 

(Article 7): 
5.  For the delivery of an agricultural or food product in accordance with an 
agreement  concluded between  the  supplier  and  buyer,  or  for  a  service 
linked to the delivery of an agricultural or food product, an invoice, or 
sales receipt, shall be issued in accordance with the tax regulations. 
6.  Any  sales  receipt  issued  by  the  buyer  on  the  supplier’s  behalf  shall 
contain at least the elements related to the calculation of value, namely 
the  quantity  of  goods  accepted,  the  quality  and  the  set  price,  and  the 
clearly  stated amount  of any  agreed  discounts or rebates  and  an exact 
specification  of  what  those  amounts  relate  to,  in  accordance  with  the 
publicly  available  and  binding  conditions  of  the  buyer  towards  the 
supplier. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
7.  The buyer shall be liable for the content of the sales receipt. 
(Article 8): 
8.  The purchaser and/or processor and the trader shall draw the supplier’s 
attention to the application of the general terms and conditions as well as 
to the manner in which general terms and conditions are published. 
9.  The terms and conditions of the general terms and conditions shall be 

clear and comprehensible. 

10.  General  terms  and  conditions  shall  not  contain  terms  which  are 
considered unfair trading practices within the meaning of this Act. 

(Article 11): 
11.  the buyer requires the supplier to pay – or agrees with and/or charges the 
supplier – compensation for services which were not provided or which 
were provided but were not agreed between the parties; 

12.  the buyer requires the supplier to pay – or agrees with and/or charges the 
supplier – compensation for safekeeping and handling after the delivery 
of  the  supplier’s  agricultural  or  food  product  and/or  requires  the 
conclusion of fictitious services or processes which will not be carried 
out  and  for  which  there  is  no  consideration  or  reason  other  than 
postponing the due date of payment; 

13.  the buyer reduces the quantity, quality and/or value of an agricultural or 
food  product  of  standard  quality  in  a  non-transparent  way  for  the 
supplier; 

14.  the buyer requires the supplier – and/or agrees on an obligation with the 
supplier – to issue any security instrument for transferred raw materials, 
without the buyer being obliged to issue a security for the transferred, 
but as yet unpaid for, agricultural or food products; 

15.  the  buyer  makes  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement  and  business 
cooperation with the supplier conditional upon compensation for goods 
and services; 

16.  the buyer requires the supplier not to sell agricultural or food products to 

other buyers at lower prices than those paid by the buyer; 

17.  the buyer requires the supplier to pay – or agrees with and/or charges the 
supplier – compensation for delivery of an agricultural or food product 
to the place of delivery or outside the agreed place of delivery;  

18.  the buyer requires the supplier to pay – or agrees with and/or charges the 
supplier  –  compensation  for  extending  the  buyer’s  sales  network, 
improving (refurbishing) the buyer’s existing points of sale, extending 
the  buyer’s  storage  capacity,  or  extending  the  buyer’s  distribution 
network; 

19.  the buyer makes the conclusion or extension of the agreement and the 
receipt  of  delivery  of  agricultural  or  food  products  covered  by  the 
agreement with the supplier conditional upon a request for the production 
and delivery of agricultural or food products which can be regarded as 
interchangeable with the products delivered or agreed upon (the buyer’s 
brand); 

20.  the buyer requires the supplier to pay – or agrees with and/or charges the 

supplier – compensation for market research; 

21.  the buyer unilaterally deletes products from the list of agreed products 
which the supplier delivers to the buyer, or significantly reduces orders 
for  a  particular  agricultural  or  food  product  from  the  supplier  without 
giving the supplier a minimum of 30 days’ written notice; 

22.  the buyer requires the supplier to pay – or agrees with and/or charges the 
supplier  –  the  costs  of  additional  quality  checks  on  the  supplier’s 
agricultural or food products, unless the additional checks establish that 
the supplier’s product does not meet the agreed quality standard, in which 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
case the cost of the additional checks for the supplier shall not exceed 
those of the buyer for the additional analysis; 

23.  the buyer agrees with and/or charges the supplier compensation which is 

not shown on the supplier’s invoice; 

24.  the  buyer  fails  to  take  over  from  the  supplier  the  agreed  quantity  of 
agricultural or food products, including agricultural or food products that 
are the buyer’s brand in accordance with the agreed schedule, except in 
justified cases stipulated in the agreement, or the buyer refuses to accept 
deliveries of agricultural or food products, including agricultural or food 
products that are the buyer’s brand, at the maturity of the obligation for 
the  supplier  to  deliver,  except  for  reasons  that  are  contractually 
established as reasonable reasons for refusing to accept delivery; 

25.  the buyer sells an agricultural or food product to the final consumer at a 
price  lower  than  the  purchase  price  plus  VAT  at  which  the  buyer 
purchased the product, unless the product is approaching its expiry date 
or in the event of the withdrawal of the agricultural or food product from 
the range, or full clearance due to the closure of a sales facility; 

26.  the buyer sells an agricultural or food product below the production price 
in the case of the buyer’s own production (the buyer’s brand), unless the 
product is approaching its expiry date or in the event of the withdrawal 
of the agricultural or food product from the range, or full clearance due 
to the closure of a sales facility; 

27.  the  buyer  sells  production-  and  market-sensitive  agricultural  and  food 

products below their final selling price; 

28.  the  buyer  sells  production-  and  market-sensitive  agricultural  and  food 
products at a discount, at their selling price, which for the final consumer 
shall not be lower than 34% of the final selling price, which may include 
a  price  discount  due  to  an  increase  in  packaging  or  the  product’s  net 
weight, without increasing the final selling price. 

Additional “grey” practices: 
(Article 12): 
29.  the  buyer  requires  the  supplier  to  pay  –  and/or  charges  the  supplier  – 
compensation for data on the sale of the supplier’s agricultural and food 
products at cash registers at the buyer’s points of sale;  

30.  the  buyer  requires  the  supplier  to  pay  –  and/or  charges  the  supplier  – 
compensation  for  fines  and  other  penalties  imposed  on  the  buyer 
pursuant to a decision of a competent authority. 

HR has introduced a general clause. 
Additional ‘black’ practices: 
1.  requiring a price reduction for the trader if making payment within the 

period of payment stipulated; 

2.  excluding the applicability of default interest, contractual penalty or any 
other  additional  obligation  against  the  trader  intended  to  ensure 
performance of the contract; 

3.  with  the  exception  where  products  are  made  under  the  trader’s  brand 
name,  binding  the  supplier  to  grant  exclusive  sales  right  to  the  trader 
without offering proper compensation in return, or demanding the best 
conditions for the trader relative to other traders; 

4.  failing  to  publish  the  standard  service  agreement  provided  for  in 
Subsection  (5),  derogating  from  the  standard  service  agreement 
published, and the trader applying any condition not therein provided for; 
the  trader  imposing  any  restriction  as  regards  the  lawful  use  of  a 
trademark by the supplier; 

5. 

20 

HU 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IE 
IT 

6. 

the trader offering products to final consumers at prices below the price 
invoiced by the supplier or, if produced by the trader himself, below cost 
-  covering  general  operation  costs  -,  not  including  the  case  where  a 
campaign  not  exceeding  fifteen  days  is  held  for  the  clearance  sale  of 
inventories of goods - notified to the agricultural administration body in 
advance - due to the trader going out of business or changing profile, as 
well  as  reduced-value  goods  (including  close-to-expiry  products  of 
which the trader has extensive quantities for unforeseen reasons); 

7.  charging to the supplier - in any way or form - any quantity-based price 
reduction,  commission  or  fee  in  connection  with  products  sold  by  the 
trader, with the exception of any subsequent proportional price reduction 
in connection with the commercial attributes of the product granted to 
the  trader  as  an  incentive  for  increasing  the  quantity  of  products 
marketed, on the basis of extra sales achieved by comparison to previous 
sales levels established by the parties, or to an estimated level considered 
commensurate  without  taking  into  account  the  tax  applicable  to  the 
product in question; 
the  trader’s  failure  to  reimburse  within  the  time  limit  provided  for  in 
Paragraph h) the supplier the public health product charges payable by 
the supplier on products supplied to the trader; 

8. 

9.  non-compliance with the provisions set out in Subsection (2b) or (2c): 

Additional “grey” practices: 
10.  applying  any  contract  term  not  originally  included  in  writing  in  the 
contract between the trader and a supplier, if such term is not inserted 
into the contract in writing within three working days from the supplier’s 
express request therefore; 

No additional UTPs. 
Additional “black” practices:  
1.  Obligation of written contracts with a minimum duration of 12 months, 

except in the case of reasoned derogations (Article 3). 

2.  The use of double-down electronic tenders and auctions for the purchase 

of agricultural and food products (Article 5(1)(a)). 

3.  Imposing excessive contractual conditions on the seller, including selling 
agricultural and food products at prices below production costs (Article 
5(1)(b)). 

4.  Failure, in the conclusion of a contract for the supply of agricultural and 
food  products,  also  to  fulfil  one  of  the  conditions  laid  down  in 
Article 168(4)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (Art 5(1)(c)). 
5.  The imposition, directly or indirectly, of conditions of purchase, sale or 
other  contractual  conditions  which  are  unjustifiably  onerous  (Article 
5(1)(d)) 

6.  The application of objectively different conditions to equivalent supplies 

(Article 5(1)(e)). 

7.  Making the conclusion, the performance of contracts and the continuity 
and  regularity  of  the  same  commercial  relationship  subject  to  the 
performance of services by the contracting parties which, by their nature 
and according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject 
of both (Article 5(1)(f)).  

8.  The obtaining of undue unilateral benefits which are not justified by the 
nature or content of the commercial relationship (Article 5(1)(g)).  
9.  The adoption of any other unfair commercial conduct which proves to be 
so, also taking into account all the whole set of commercial relationships 
determining the supply conditions (Article 5(1)(h)). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
LT 
LU 
LV 

10.  The imposition on a party of services ancillary to the main subject-matter 
of  the  supply,  even  if  they  are  supplied  by  third  parties,  without  any 
objective, direct and logical connection with the supply of the contract 
product (Article 5(1)(i)). 

11.  The  exclusion  of  the  application  of  interest  for  late  payment  to  the 
detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt recovery (Article 5(1)(j)).  
12.  The  provision  in  the  contract  of  a  clause  requiring  the  supplier,  after 
delivery of the products, to have a minimum period of time before it can 
issue the invoice, except in the case of delivery of the goods in several 
instalments in the same month, in which case the invoice may be issued 
only after the last delivery of the month (Article 5(1)(k)).  

13.  The  imposition  of  an  unjustified  and  disproportionate  transfer  of  the 

economic risk from one party to its other party (Article 5(1)(l)). 

14.  The imposition on the buyer by the supplier of products with expiry dates 
that are too short in relation to the contractual residual life of the product 
(Article 5(1)(m)). 

15.  The imposition on the buyer by the supplier of contractual links for the 
maintenance of a given set, understood as all the goods offered for sale 
by a trader to meet the needs of his customers (Article 5(1)(n)).  

16.  Requiring the buyer by the supplier to include new products in the range 

(Article 5(1)(o)).  

17.  The imposition on the buyer, by the supplier, of preferential positions in 
respect  of  certain  products  in  the  shelf  or  in  the  course  of  business 
(Article 5(1)(p)). 

IT has introduced a general clause. 
No additional practices. 
No additional practices. 
Additional “black” practices: 
There are additions to both the black and grey lists.  
1.  Setting unfair and unjustified penalties for a breach of the terms of the 

contract. 

2.  Altering  an  order  of  agricultural  and  food  products  two  days  or  less 

before delivery thereof. 

3.  Refusing to accept from an agricultural and food product supplier those 
agricultural and food products that are usable for at least a further two 
thirds of the shelf life designated for them, if this shelf life exceeds 30 
days. 

4.  Ensuring the lowest price by limiting the freedom of the agricultural and 
food product supplier to agree on a lower price with another agricultural 
and food product retailer. 

5.  An agricultural and food product retailer dealing with a producer or a 
producers’ cooperative society shall be prohibited from applying unfair 
and unjustifiably long deadlines for payments for fresh vegetables and 
berries. 

Additional “grey” practices: 
6.  Require the supplier of agricultural and food products to pay directly or 

indirectly for the logistics service. 

7.  Require  the  agricultural  and  food  product  supplier  to  obtain  products, 

services or property from a third party designated by the buyer. 

8.  Apply a discount to the agricultural and food products which was applied 
to  them  to  stimulate  sales  of  those  products  for  a  specified  period,  in 
which those products nevertheless failed to be sold. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
MT 
NL 
PL 

PT 

LV has introduced a general clause. 
No additional practices. 
No additional practices. 
Additional “black” practices: 
1.  An unjustified reduction in the amount due for the supply of agricultural 
or food products after acceptance by the purchaser, either in full or in the 
agreed part, in particular as a result of a request for a rebate. 

PL has introduced a general clause according to which “Practices involving 
the unfair use of the contractual advantage of a buyer over a supplier or a 
supplier over a buyer are prohibited. The use of contractual advantage shall 
be unfair if it is contrary to good conduct and threatens or undermines a vital 
interest  of  the  other  party.  Contractual  advantage  is  the  existence  of  a 
significant disproportion in the economic potential of a buyer as compared to 
a supplier or of a supplier as compared to a buyer.” (significant imbalance is 
presumed if threshold met). 

to 

direct 

or 
on 

leading 

imposition 

offers 
in 

any  payments 

unilateral, 
special 

Additional “black” practices: 
1.  Without  prejudice  to  the  applicable  rules  in  the  area  of  standard 
contractual terms and conditions, any business-to-business commercial 
practices 
the  situations  below  shall  be  prohibited:  
a)  making  sales  to  another  company  impossible  at  a  lower  price;  
b)  obtaining  prices,  payment  conditions,  sales methods  or commercial 
cooperation terms that are exorbitant in relation to the general conditions 
sale;  
of 
indirect 
c) 
of:  
a 
i) 
product;  
special  offer;  
consideration 
ii) 
d) obtaining any benefits from current or past special offers or any other 
benefits  which  are  not  effective  and  proportional,  specifically  through 
the  issue  of  credit  and  debit  notes  with  a  deadline  longer  than  three 
they  refer;  
months  from 
e)  retroactively  changing,  albeit  non-contractually,  the  terms  and 
conditions 
contracts;  
f)  the  supplier  being  penalised  for  failure  to  fulfil  orders,  where  said 
orders are disproportionate compared to the normal amounts consumed 
by the purchaser or the normal volume supplied by the seller, where a 
delivery would have been made under normal conditions but cannot be 
made for unforeseeable reasons of force majeure, with the onus being on 
impediment;  
the 
[…]  

particular 
a 

the  date  of 

to  which 

supplier 

invoice 

supply 

prove 

down 

such 

laid 

the 

for 

in 

to 

2.  For the purposes of subparagraph 1(b), prices, conditions of payment and 
terms of sale or commercial cooperation shall be deemed exorbitant if 
they have the effect of giving the purchaser or reseller a benefit that is 
disproportionate  to  the  volume  of  purchases  or  resales  or,  where 
applicable, the services provided.   

3.  Any business-to-business trading practices involving the deduction, by 
one of the parties, of invoiced amounts due for the supply of goods and 
services 
where:  
a)  the  reasons  for  the  deductions  are  not  duly  specified,  and  
b) the other party objects, giving grounds, within 25 days.  

prohibited 

shall 

also 

be 

4.  Any  unilateral  practice  which  is intended  to  or supports  the following 
shall 
prohibited:  
a)  the  imposition  of  a  duty  to  fulfil  the  contract  early,  without 

also 

be 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
compensation;  
b)  the  imposition  of  deductions  not  provided  for  in  the  contract,  after 
delivery of the goods or services.  

or 

of 

the 

volume 

5.  Trading practices of the purchaser which impose a payment, directly or 
in  the  form  of  a  discount,  are  also  prohibited  in  the  following  cases:  
a) in respect of the failure to meet the purchaser's expectations as regards 
the 
sales;  
value 
b)  in  respect  of  the  introduction  or  reintroduction  of  products;  
[…]  
d)  due  to  costs  of  transport  and  storage  after  delivery  of  the  product;  
e) as a contribution to the opening of new facilities or refurbishment of 
existing 
ones;  
f) as a condition for beginning a commercial relationship with a supplier.  
6.  The period laid down in point 1(d) may, exceptionally, be extended by 
mutual  agreement  between  the  parties  in  the  case  of  the  sale  of  new 
vehicles,  leisure  vessels  and  sailing  boats,  industrial  machinery, 
agricultural  machinery  and  motor  caravans,  where  duly  justified;  for 
example, where it cannot be complied with due to logistical complexity. 
It may not, however, exceed six months.  

RO 

7.  Any contract clause that breaches the provisions laid down in this Article 

shall be null and void.  

8.  Business practices not banned under this Article, specifically based on 
the size or the sector of activity of those involved, must be the subject of 
self-regulation by the instruments referred to in Article 16.  

Without prejudice to the above Articles, the following trading practices of 
purchasers  in  commercial  transactions  concerning  agricultural  or  agrifood 
products are prohibited:  

9.  Rejection or return of products delivered on the grounds of lower quality 
of some or all of the order or late delivery without the purchaser having 
demonstrated that the supplier was responsible for such shortcomings. 

PT has introduced a general clause. 
Additional “black” practices: 
The buyer is prohibited from: 
1.  setting a period of notice which is less than 60 days for delisting a private 
brand product of a producer for categories of products which include the 
marketing of a supermarket’s own brand; 

2.  requiring invoicing and/or re-invoicing and collecting from the supplier 
any costs other than those agreed in the commercial contract; the costs 
associated with extending the buyer’s distribution network, and holding 
events promoting the buyer’s business and image cannot be charged to 
the supplier; 

3.  using self-invoicing for agricultural and/or food products, except in the 
cases provided for in Article 320 of Law No 227/2015 on the Fiscal Code, 
as amended; 

4.  applying financial and commercial reductions in the form of rebates, with 
the  exception  of  discounts  and  returns,  the  cumulative  reductions  of 
which shall not be higher than 20 %, applied on the basis of the amount 
invoiced between the buyer and the supplier for agricultural and/or food 
products, by way of derogation from Law No 227/2015, as amended; 
5.  disclosing the terms and conditions of the commercial contract for the 
purchase of agricultural and/or food products, unless this is necessary for 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the fulfilment of its obligations towards the supplier or compliance with 
legal provisions; this provision shall also apply to the supplier; 

6.  delaying  the  receipt  and  preparation  of  the  acceptance  documents  for 

7. 

agricultural and food products; 
invoicing the value of the services provided, referred to in Article 4 (2) 
(a), (b), (e) and (f), in excess of 5 % of the value received by the supplier 
under the contract concluded between the parties; 

8.  purchasing  and  marketing  food  products  without  verification  of  their 
traceability if the purchase price is below the average cost of production 
on the relevant market during the period of purchase according to official 
statistics at European Union level;  

9.  requiring the supplier, directly or indirectly, to purchase or sell from a 

third party;  

10.  requiring the supplier to pay taxes, whatever their form and name, which 
obliges  the  supplier  to  artificially  increase  the  invoice  price  of  the 
product; 

11.  delisting, threatening to delist or withdrawing one or more agricultural 
and/or food products from display in order to put pressure on or carry out 
trade  retaliation  against  the  supplier  in  order  to  make  it  accept 
unfavourable contractual clauses; 

12.  listing and displaying on the shelves only the buyer’s own brand, so that 
the offer includes at least one private brand of a competing producer in 
the product category in question; 

13.  applying  different  commercial  conditions  to  producers’  private  brand 
the  retailer’s  own  brand  products  for 

to 
products  compared 
listing/display on shelves; 

14.  refusing  to  list  an  agricultural  and/or  food  product  registered  under 
national and/or European quality schemes, offered by a supplier, on the 
grounds of a lack of volumes and seasonality; 

15.  offering or selling agricultural and/or food products at a loss, except as 

provided for by the legislation in force; 

16.  taking over the terms of trade agreed with the supplier for the purchase 
of retail channel products and applying them to purchases of wholesale 
channel products from the supplier.  

Additional “grey” practices: 
In order to avoid unfair trading practices, irrespective of when they occur in 
the agricultural and food supply chain, unless, at the request of the supplier, 
they have been agreed in advance in clear and unambiguous clauses in the 
commercial contract or in a subsequent supplementary agreement, it shall be 
prohibited for the buyer to: 
17.  refuse the supplier a price renegotiation within a period of more than 10 
days from the date of the request; the terms of the price renegotiation 
shall take effect within the period laid down in the contract;  

18.  oblige the supplier to make staff available for the sale of the products or 

any other activity related to the sales-promotion process;  

19.  impose  a  payment  on  the  supplier  for  the  secondary  placement  of  its 

agricultural and food products for sale.  

RO has introduced a general clause. 
No additional UTPs 
Additional “black and grey” practices: 
Prohibited  trading  practices  (Article  61f(4)  of  the  relevant  Slovenian Act) 
shall include:  

25 

SE 
SI 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  reimbursement for services which have not been rendered or for services 
which have been rendered but which have not been agreed in writing and 
clearly in advance between the parties; 

2.  reimbursement  for  the  introduction,  maintenance  or  extension  of  a 

product range or products; 

3.  reimbursement for the storage or display or shelving of products at points 
of sale, or for making such products available on the market, or for the 
cost of personnel to furnish premises used for the sale of the supplier's 
products,  unless  clearly  and  unambiguously  agreed  in  advance  by  the 
supplier  and  the  buyer  in  the  supply  contract  or  in  subsequent  written 
agreements  between  the  supplier  and  the  buyer,  which  will  be 
implemented and the implementation of which can be demonstrated; 
the charging of rebates for the promotion, advertising and marketing of 
agricultural and  food  products,  unless  the  supplier and  the  buyer  have 
agreed in writing, clearly, unambiguously and in advance in the supply 
contract or in subsequent written agreements between the supplier and 
the buyer, which will be implemented and which can be demonstrated to 
have been implemented; 

4. 

7. 

5.  reimbursement of the costs of concluding the contract; 
6.  a  contribution  to  the  expansion  of  the  store's  sales  network,  the 
improvement or conversion of existing outlets, the expansion of storage 
capacity, the extension of the distribution network and similar activities; 
the  return  of  unsold  perishable  agricultural  and  food  products  and 
products which have a shelf life of at least one third of the period from 
delivery  to  maturity,  without  payment  by  the  buyer  for  these  unsold 
products or for the disposal of these products, or both, unless the return 
of  non-perishable  agricultural  and  food  products  has  been  clearly  and 
unambiguously agreed in advance in the supply contract or in subsequent 
the 
written  agreements  between 
implementation of which can be demonstrated; 

the  supplier  and 

the  buyer, 

8.  payment  for  goods  not  sold  during  the  period  of  the  promotion  at  the 

promotional purchase prices; 

9.  regular or disproportionate discount for payment of invoices before their 

due date; 

10.  charging compensation for a reduction in turnover, sales or margin due 

to a reduction in the sale of certain goods; 
11.  failure to comply with the payment deadlines; 
12.  failure to take over the agreed quantities of products in accordance with 
the agreed buying-in dynamics, if these deviate from the agreement by 
more than 25 percent; 

13.  making the conclusion of a contract or business cooperation conditional 

upon counter-supply on non-competitive terms; 

14.  demanding  exclusivity  of  sale  of  particular  goods,  except  for  goods 
manufactured for sale under a trade mark or at the customer's request and 
to the customer's specifications; 

15.  making  the  conclusion  or  renewal  of  a  contract  or  the  acceptance  of 
products  conditional  upon  the  requirement  to  manufacture  and  supply 
trade-marked products which are deemed to be interchangeable with the 
manufacturer's trade marks; 

16.  a requirement by the buyer that the supplier does not sell the products to 

third parties at prices lower than those paid by the buyer; 

17.  cancellation  of  an  order  for  perishable  agricultural  and  food  products 
within a period so short that the supplier cannot reasonably be expected 
to  find  an  alternative  means  of  marketing  or  using  the  products; 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
cancellation within a period of less than 30 days shall always be regarded 
as a short period; 

18.  discriminatory  or  disproportionate  charging  of  compensation  for 

unloading of the goods supplied; 

19.  a  demand  for  payment  for  deterioration  or  loss  of  agricultural  or food 
products, or both, occurring on the buyer's premises or after the transfer 
of ownership to the buyer, where such deterioration or loss is not due to 
the negligence or fault of the supplier; 

20.  the transfer of commercial risk to the customer after delivery in respect 
of  fines  or  other  penalties  imposed,  unless  the  fine  or  other  penalty 
imposed  is  due  to  a  defect  in  the  goods  for  which  the  supplier  is 
responsible; 

21.  the imposition of disproportionate or unfair contractual penalties; 
22.  prohibiting the assignment of claims; 
23.  refusal to confirm in writing the terms of the contract of supply between 
the buyer and the supplier, or failure to comply with the obligations laid 
down in Article 61g of the Agriculture Act as regards the written form or 
the mandatory elements of the contract; 

24.  unilateral  changes  of  the  terms  of  the  contract  for  the  supply  of 
agricultural and food products concerning the frequency, manner, place, 
time  limits  or  extent  of  supply  or  delivery  of  agricultural  and  food 
products, quality standards, payment terms or prices, or concerning the 
provision of services; 

25.  the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure by the Buyer of the Supplier's 

trade secrets in accordance with the law governing trade secrets; 

26.  threats of retaliatory measures by the buyer (e.g. withdrawal of products 
from the offer, reduction of ordered quantities of products or suspension 
of  certain  services  provided  by  the  Buyer  to  the  Supplier,  such  as 
marketing or promotions of the Supplier's products) or the taking of such 
measures  if  the  Supplier  is  exercising  its  contractual  or  legal  rights, 
including by filing a complaint with the authorities referred to in Article 
61i of the Agriculture Act or by cooperating with those authorities during 
the proceedings; 

27.  a claim by the buyer for compensation for costs incurred in investigating 
a  customer  complaint  in  connection  with  the  sale  of  the  Supplier's 
products, even if the Supplier is not negligent or at fault. 

SI has introduced a general clause. 
Additional “black” practices: 
1.  Pecuniary performance or performance in kind provided by a party to a 

business relationship for  

a.  Including  the  party  in  a  customer’s  register  of  suppliers  or  a 
supplier’s  register  of  customers,  including  changes  to  such  a 
register. 

b.  Including  a  supplier’s  food  in  the  records  of  food  sold  by  a 

customer, including changes to such records. 

c.  Renewal or expansion of the business network of the party to the 

business relationship. 

d.  Lower  profit  or  margin  of  a  customer  compared  with  the 

customer’s intended profit or margin. 

e.  A visit by a party to a business relationship to a prospective party 
to a business relationship with a view to establishing a business 
relationship. 

27 

SK 

 
 
 
 
 
 
f.  Placing certain food in a customer’s establishment even if it is 
an  establishment  located  outside  the  territory  of  the  Slovak 
Republic. 

g.  Market research or a service related to computer processing of 

data carried out by a customer. 

2.  Examination of the supplier’s premises by the customer or analyses and 
tests of the supplier’s food by the customer; this shall not apply if the 
customer  carries  out  an  examination  of  the  supplier’s  premises  or 
analyses  and  tests  of  the  supplier’s  food  at  its  own  expense,  to  a 
reasonable extent and, in case of an examination of premises, with the 
supplier’s consent. 

3.  Giving priority to the results of other checks of food quality and safety, 
nutritional data and other mandatory information on food over the results 
of  checks  carried  out  by  governmental  authorities  under  a  special 
regulation without a fundamental change of circumstances. 

4.  Reimbursement  of  a  penalty  imposed  on  a  customer  by  governmental 
authorities; this does not apply if the reason for imposing the penalty is 
a proven breach of the supplier’s obligations. 

5.  Reimbursement  of  a  pecuniary  performance  or  performance  in  kind 
provided by a customer to a consumer for the exercise of the consumer’s 
rights  under  the  Civil  Code  and  special  regulations  in  the  field  of 
consumer protection; this does not apply if the reason for exercising the 
right is a proven breach of the supplier’s obligations. 

6.  Purchase  of  food  by  a  consumer  at  a  purchase  price  below  the 
economically justified costs of the buyer [i.e. re-sale at loss by retailers]. 
7.  An advance on future contractual penalties; disadvantaging a supplier or 
group of suppliers by requiring the supplier(s) to use a particular type of 
packaging  if  another  supplier  is  allowed  to  use  a  more  economically 
advantageous alternative for the supply of the same or similar goods. 
8.  Other acts or omissions of a party to a business relationship vis-à-vis the 
other party to the business relationship which departs from fair trade. 
9.  Passing on costs associated with the tax burden or passing on services 

that constitute unfair terms into the reduction of a purchase price. 

10.  Making the supply of a supplier’s food conditional on the production of 

the food under the customer’s brand name. 

11.  Refusal  to  indicate  on  the  packaging  of  food  sold  under  a  customer’s 
brand name the brand name and registered office of the supplier, if the 
supplier so requests. 

12.  Wrongful  or  unjustified  set-off  of  claims  of  parties  to  a  business 

relationship. 

13.  A different time of acquisition of the ownership title to food or a different 
time of passage of the risk of damage to food than the time of acceptance 
of the food by the customer. 

14.  Multiple contractual penalties against a party to a business relationship 

for a breach of the same contractual obligation. 

15.  A  contractual  penalty  the  amount  of  which  is  disproportionate  to  the 
value  and  importance  of  the  corresponding  breached  contractual 
obligation. 

Additional “grey” UTP:  
16.  Fulfilment  of  a  condition  agreed  between  the  parties  to  the  business 
relationship, relating to the off take of a certain quantity or volume of 
food, which is charged separately. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.6. 

Focus on prohibitions to sell or buy below production costs to re-sell at a loss or 
below purchase price or any other obligation to respect a certain price level 

4 MS have 
introduced a 
provision on 
sale or 
purchase 
below 
production 
cost 

3 MS have 
introduced a 
provision on 
re-sale at a 
loss 

ES, HR, HU, IT  

ES: Article 12b (1) of Ley de cadena: “In order to avoid the destruction of the value 
in the food chain, each operator of the food chain shall pay the immediately preceding 
operator a price equal to or greater than the cost of production of that product actually 
incurred or borne by that operator. Accreditation shall be carried out in accordance 
with the means of proof admitted to the law”. 

HR:  
Article 11 (1) 
“...other prohibited unfair trading practices involving the buyer and supplier shall be 
practices in which: 
... 
25. the buyer sells an agricultural or food product below the production price in the 
case  of  the  buyer’s  own  production  (the  buyer’s  brand),  unless  the  product  is 
approaching its expiry date or in the event of the withdrawal of the agricultural or 
food product from the range, or full clearance due to the closure of a sales facility; 
26. the buyer sells production- and market-sensitive agricultural and food products 
below their final selling price;” 

HU: Article 3(2)(q) of Act XCV: “ the trader offering products to final consumers at 
prices below the price invoiced by the supplier or, if produced by the trader himself, 
below  cost  -  covering  general  operation  costs  -,  not  including  the  case  where  a 
campaign not exceeding fifteen days is held for the clearance sale of inventories of 
goods - notified to the agricultural administration body in advance - due to the trader 
going out of business or changing profile, as well as reduced-value goods (including 
close-to-expiry products of which the trader has extensive quantities for unforeseen 
reasons);” 

IT: Article  5: “imposing  excessive  contractual  conditions  on  the seller, including 
selling agricultural and food products at prices below production costs”. 

Article 7(1): “Without prejudice to the provisions of Legislative Decree No 114 of 
31 March 1998 and Decree No 218 of the President of the Republic of 6 April 2001 
concerning the procedures and penalties laid down therein, the sale at a loss of fresh 
and perishable agricultural and food products shall be permitted only in the case of 
unsold  products  at  risk  of  perishability  or  in  the  case  of  commercial  transactions 
planned and agreed with the supplier in writing”. 
ES, HU, RO  

ES: Article 12b(2) of Ley de Cadena: “In order to protect the marketing capacity of 
primary producers, operators making the final sale of food or food products to 
consumers may not charge or offer a retail price below the actual purchase price of 
that price”. 

HU: Article 3(2)(q) of Act XCV: “ the trader offering products to final consumers at 
prices below the price invoiced by the supplier or, if produced by the trader himself, 
below cost - covering general operation costs -, not including the case where a 
campaign not exceeding fifteen days is held for the clearance sale of inventories of 
goods - notified to the agricultural administration body in advance - due to the 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 MS have 
introduced 
any other 
obligation to 
respect a 
certain price 
level 

trader going out of business or changing profile, as well as reduced-value goods 
(including close-to-expiry products of which the trader has extensive quantities for 
unforeseen reasons);” 

RO: Article 3(16) of Law no. 81/2022 of 11 April 2022: “The buyer is prohibited 
from purchasing and marketing food products without verifying their traceability if 
the purchase price is lower than the average cost of production on the relevant 
market at the time of purchase, according to official statistics at European Union 
level.” 
ES, IT 

ES: Article 9 Ley de cadena: “The price of the food contract to be received by a 
primary producer or a group thereof must in any case be higher than the total costs 
borne by the producer or actual cost of production, which shall include all the costs 
incurred in carrying out his activity, inter alia, the cost of seeds and nursery plants, 
fertilisers, phytosanitary, pesticides, fuels and energy, machinery, repairs, irrigation 
costs, animal feed, veterinary costs, depreciation, interest on loans and financial 
products, work contracted and labour employed or provided by the producer 
himself or by members of his household. The actual cost shall be determined by 
reference to the total marketed production for all or part of the business or 
production cycle, which shall be attributed in the manner in which the supplier 
considers that it best conforms to the quality and characteristics of the products 
covered by each contract”. 

IT: Article 7(3) on application of the prohibition on sale at a loss: “In the event of a 
breach of the provision referred to in paragraph 1, the price fixed by the parties 
shall be automatically replaced, pursuant to Article 1339 of the Civil Code, by the 
price resulting from the purchase invoices or, if it is not possible to match the 
purchase invoices, by the price calculated on the basis of the average production 
costs recorded by the Institute for Food Agricultural Market Services - ISMEA or, 
failing that, by the average price charged for similar products in the reference 
market.” 

5. 

AGGREGATED OVERALL DATA ON MEMBER STATES’ ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN 
2022 AND 2023 

•  In  2022,  over  80%  of  own  initiative  (ex  officio)  cases  and  investigations  indicated 
below refer to Spain only. In 2023, around 75% of own initiative cases and investigations 
indicated below refer to Spain only.  
In some cases, there might be a correlation between a higher number of guidance cases and 
a  smaller  number  of  complaints.  The  differences  in  the  number  of  the  cases  may  also 
depend on the internal rules of enforcement authorities. 

• 

•  In  2023,  out  of  the  EUR  22  million  of  the  total  amount  of  fines  for  the  number  of 

detected infringements, EUR 20 million amount to Poland only.   

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of enforcement activities 

2022 

20239 

Number of guidance cases 

Number of mediation cases 

Number of complaints received during the reporting period (incl. 
anonymous hints) 

809 

8 

178 

603 

42 

271 

Number of complaints rejected/closed/withdrawn 

45 

92 

Number of investigations opened during the reporting period 

1 437 

1 580 

Number of ex officio cases opened during the reporting period 

1 393 

1 107 

Number of investigations closed during the reporting period 

812 

1 007 

Number of investigations resulting in finding an infringement 

218* 

269* 

Number of sector inquiries 

55 

84 

*Total amount of fines for the number of detected infringements 

EUR 15.1 
million 

EUR 22 
million 
(excluding 
EE, EL, 
FR, MT, 
SK, FI) 

9 Excluding Estonia, Greece, France, Malta, Slovakia, Finland. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS FROM THE 2023 ANNUAL UTP SURVEY  

6.1. 

Suppliers’ awareness of the existence of the UTP Directive 

On the question whether respondents were aware that the European Parliament and the Council 
had  adopted  on  17  April  2019  the  Directive  (EU)  2019/633  on  unfair  trading  practices  in 
business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, around 38% of the 
approximately 1 500 respondents replied that they were not aware. 

6.2. 

Suppliers’ awareness of the existence of national enforcement authorities 

Asked whether they knew which was the enforcement authority in their country they could turn 
to, to file a complaint with regard to UTPs, 57 % of respondents replied that they were not 
aware. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.3. 

Suppliers’  main  reasons  for  not  raising  an  issue  with  a  national  enforcement 
authority 

Asked  for  the  main  reasons  for  not  raising  an  issue  with  a  national  enforcement  authority 
despite  having  experienced  a  UTP,  respondents  mainly  indicated  fear  of  some  form  of 
retaliation from the buyer (30%), followed by considering it as a common practice in the sector 
(23%) or thinking the public enforcement authority would not be able to handle it (17%). 

Results of all Commission UTP surveys are available here: Unfair Trade Practices (europa.eu) 

33