YOUR
Search

    29.03.2020

    ANTITRUST LAW IN THE CORONA CRISIS (4): MARKET POWER


    Antitrust law also applies in times of crisis. Antitrust law imposes a special responsibility on companies with market power. In times of crisis, their market behaviour and commercial practices can quickly come into the focus of the antitrust authorities.

     

    The closing of national borders for the movement of goods can narrow the relevant markets under competition law and thus create market dominance, which did not exist when borders where still open. A company's market position can also be strengthened by the crisis as a result of competitors no longer being able to maintain their production or withdrawing from the market altogether. In addition, dependence due to scarcity, e.g. on one supplier, may lead to special responsibilities under the German rules for companies with so-called relative market power even where they lack market dominance.

     

    Anyone with such market power must not abuse it. –If, despite this, a company still e.g. charges excessive prices, it risks an intervention by the antitrust authorities. Many antitrust authorities have already announced that they will critically examine price increases as a result of the crisis, in particular, for scarce goods, health care services and basic supplies. However, even in times of crisis not every price increase is an abuse of market power: Increased production costs, particularly as a result of the crisis, can legitimise corresponding price increases even by a company with market power.

     

    Other prominent examples of abusing market power are refusals to supply and discriminations against suppliers or customers. However, crisis-related bottleneck problems can be an objective reason to justify a partial or complete refusal to supply or unequal treatment of business partners under antitrust law. This applies, for instance, to a preferential supply of regular customers compared to new customers. However, a dominant supplier of goods or services that are in short supply as a result of the crisis may still be obliged under antitrust law to scale selling, i.e. to supplying its customers according to their importance (e.g. according to the volume purchased in the last financial year). A preference for regular customers remains possible in this context, too.

     

    Since the corona crisis does not suspend any obligations under antitrust law, the following applies in particular to crisis-related measures taken by companies with a strong market position in relation to suppliers and distributors: Review and document the admissibility of such measures under antitrust law in a self-assessment!

     

    BEITEN BURKHARDT's antitrust lawyers also provide support for your company in the corona crisis. Please contact Dr Christian Heinichen or Christoph Heinrich.

     

    Further support is available here in the "Corona Informationscenter" of BEITEN BURKHARDT.

     

    New: The Regulation on the prohibition of products made with forced labour ("Forced Labour Regulation")
    On 19.11.2024, after the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union …
    Read more
    The Foreign Subsidies Regulation: Where do we stand?
    In the following we provide an overview of what has happened since the entry int…
    Read more
    Russian Supreme Court: Arbitrators from “Unfriendly States” are Not Impartial and Objective
    On 26 July 2024 the Russian Supreme Court decided on the enforcement and recogni…
    Read more
    Ursula von der Leyen re-elected European Union Commission President
    Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was re-elected Commission President w…
    Read more
    The European Commission's Revised Market Definition Notice in Practice
    Market definition permeates every competition law assessment. It is an essential…
    Read more
    ADVANT Beiten Advises Aesculap on Sale of TETEC AG to the Canadian Octane Group
    Dusseldorf, 26 June 2024 – The international law firm ADVANT Beiten has provided interdisciplinary advice to Aesculap AG, a subsidiary of the B. Braun group seated in Melsungen, Germany, on the sale of its…
    Read more
    Liability of board members and managing directors for antitrust infringements –NO recourse for fines but possible recourse for cartel damages claims
    Cartel members or their board members and managing directors, who violate their fiduciary responsibilities, are not personally liable for fines imposed against the undertaking. In contrast, the Court held …
    Read more
    Adacta and ADVANT Beiten Advise EBARA on the Acquisition of a Business Division of SKF
    Munich, 24 July 2023 - The international commercial law firm ADVANT Beiten has advised EBARA Pumps Europe S.p.A. (EPE), part of the Japanese EBARA Corporation (EBARA), on the acquisition of the business di…
    Read more
    ADVANT Beiten Advises Laumann Group Especially on Antitrust Law Issues in Connection with the Acquisition of a Majority Share in Ponzio Polska
    Munich, 20 April 2023 - The international law firm ADVANT Beiten has advised Laumann Group on the acquisition of a majority share in Ponzio Polska, headquartered in Plock, Poland, primarily on antitrust la…
    Read more