Public Discussion on Article 82 Single Branding & Rebates Antonio Creus Brussels, 14th June 2006

1. AEDC Asociacion Española de Defensa de la Competencia Public Discussion on Article 82Single Branding & RebatesAntonio CreusBrussels, 14th June 2006

2. General Overview • Introductory remarks • Regarding the Discussion Paper • Aren’t we drafting a new “Article 82.3” ? • Is the new approach realistic enough? AEDC

3. Rebates & Single Branding • General comment: positive economic approach • BUT: clearer rules needed, allowing dominants predictability of their conduct. • AND: Such rules should facilitate application of Art. 82 by national authorities and courts AEDC

4. Rebates & Single Branding • Negative effects of single branding obligations and rebates • BUT: At the very least rebates involve lower prices, which normally should be welcomed, since it benefits consumers. • Most undertakings use single branding obligations and rebates on a regular basis AEDC

5. Rebates & Single Branding • Single branding: less dogmatic approach towards non-predatory discounts by dominant undertakings • Purchasing obligations which are short-term or easy to terminate probably do not have foreclosure effects AEDC

6. Rebates & Single Branding • Presumption of illegality based on the degree of foreclosure. • BUT: take into account the following: • market foreclosure is not an end in itself • Single branding may produce pro-competitive effects • Single branding is a type of competition for the market AEDC

7. Rebates & Single Branding • The Commission should also have clarified some other points, such as: • The duration of reference period for calculating the rebate applicable to a given client. • Quantitative rebates and loyalty rebates. AEDC

8. Rebates & Single Branding • Rebates: presumption of legality when the effect is to reduce prices for the final consumer? • At least establish a type of ‘safe harbour’ • Take into account market power of clients AEDC

9. Thank You AEDC