Supply Agreement En Espanol

Following that judgment, on 7 February 2018, the Spanish Supreme Court partially upd the applicants` claims and declared that the agreement at issue was excessive, considering that the duration of the exclusive supply clause was excessive. The judgment took account of the Commission`s assessment in the commitment decision as evidence of the non-competition of Repsol`s practices and found that the disproportionate duration of the exclusivity clauses put an end to market entry, thereby limiting competition. It was a lease agreement for land and a service station concluded by Repsol, which contained an exclusive supply obligation of 25 years vis-à-vis Repsol and the possibility for Repsol to set maximum retail prices. The contract in question was reviewed in 2006 by the European Commission, which concluded that the excessive duration of the exclusive supply clause limited competition. As part of the Commission`s commitment decision, Repsol undertook to authorise all service stations with which it had concluded long-term supply contracts to terminate those contracts, subject to compensation to be paid to Repsol, and not to conclude similar agreements in the future. In 2008, despite the undertaking decision, the applicants brought several actions before the Spanish courts for nullity of the contract, claiming that repsol`s long-term exclusive supply obligation and ability to set maximum retail prices were contrary to competition. The Supreme Court was finally the subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice, in which it essentially asked whether national courts could annul an anti-competitive agreement if the Commission had previously accepted and made binding a number of obligations under the same agreement. Prepared as part of the sectoral reform as a model agreement for a Southeast Asian country. The judgment of the Court of Justice concluded that national courts had the final say on the anti-competitive nature of an agreement, whether commitments had been agreed with the Commission (see VBB Wettbewerbsrecht, 2017, no. .