EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

not entirely clear whether the requirement only refers to benefits for users of the relevant market of the product and a full compensation for them is necessary, or whether the scope can be broader. This issue is fundamental in the context of sustainability agreements, since the negative externalities that a sustainability agreement may aim to avoid, or the benefits that it aims to seek, will generally affect society as a whole (e.g., less pollution, health, etc.). While it seems that the European Commission in the 2011 Guidelines (European Commission, 2011) stipulates that users should be seen as a group for each relevant market, and full compensation of the users on the relevant market is necessary, it also mentions that society benefits as a whole in certain situations (para. 65). In the CECED case (Commission Decision of 24 January 1999), which concerned the agreement between washing machine manufacturers to stop the production of the least energy-efficient washing machines, the Commission assessed the individual economic benefits for the washing machine users but also analysed the collective environmental benefits for society as a whole. Still, the conclusion was based on the decision that users of the relevant market were fully compensated. The Dutch ACM makes an important distinction in the Draft Guidelines between environmental-damage agreements and other sustainability agreements. Regarding environmental-damage agreements, the ACM believes that benefits for others than merely the users should be taken into account, since, in those cases, it is the demand for the products in question, the one creating the problem that affects society, and it can be fair not to fully compensate users for the harm that the agreement causes. The ACM also mentions that these users enjoy the same benefits as the society. In this context, it is necessary to mention that the ACM has published a legal memo on 27 September 2021, titled ‘What is meant by a fair share for consumers in Article 101(3) TFEU in a sustainability context?’. On the basis of the current wording of Article 101(3) TFEU and after an analysis of the relevant case law of the CJEU (e.g., Mastercard (2014), but also previous cases such as GlaxoSmithKline (2006) or Compagnie Générale Maritime (2002)), the ACM concludes in this document that ‘out of market benefits are relevant, full compensation of directly affected consumers in the relevant market is not required in all cases, and we should act accordingly when applying Article 101(3) TFEU to sustainability agreements’ (Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, 2021, p. 4). The ACM further justifies in this memo the position taken in its Draft Guidelines regarding environmental-damage agreements. Considering the principle of ‘polluter pays’ established in Article 191(2) TFEU, which entails that the costs of the negative externalities should be borne by those directly benefiting from the pollution, it is submitted that the benefits of addressing those externalities should not be limited to those direct beneficiaries (Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, 2021, p. 4). Thus, when

172