The General Court of the European Union has confirmed the anticompetitive nature of agreements, which provide for the payment of a sum to competitors for their undertaking to stay out of a specific market. In the case at stake, a Danish pharmaceutical company, leader company in the market, executed a “patent settlement agreement” with competitors producing generic pharmaceutical products in exchange for their undertaking not to launch their products on the market before the expiry of the agreement itself.
On February 2016, the European Union launched an Online Dispute Resolution (‘ODR’) procedure for out-of-court resolution of disputes related to online sales and service contracts.
Since then, the number of complaints brought before ODR bodies has reached the peak of 24.387. Most common areas of dispute concern: clothing and footwear, airlines services, information and communication technology goods, mobile telephone services, hotels and other holiday accommodation.
On January 18, 2017 Regulation (EU) n. 655/2014 has entered into force in the E.U.
The Regulation establishes a procedure for obtaining a European Account Preservation Order (the “Preservation Order”). The latter allows for the preservation of funds held by the debtor (or on his behalf) in a bank account maintained in a Member State, by transferring or withdrawing such funds, up to the amount specified in the Preservation Order itself.
The Italian Supreme Court (Cass. Civ. 28 December 2016 n. 27072) has established that parties to a buying agency agreement are free to choose the foum they deem appropriate, including foreign and arbitration fora, for the settlement of any dispute related to the agreement, without restriction.
The case before the Italian Supreme Court involved an Italian buying agent and a U.S. company.
According to the Italian Supreme Court, the buying agency agreement could not be defined as a veritable agency agreement in light of Italian law, as the obligations undertaken by the agent were different from the typical obligations provided for by an agency agreement (i.e. promoting the execution of sale agreements on behalf of the principal).
As a consequence, imperative principles and norms of EU and Italian law regulating commercial agency, which guarantee special protection to the agent (in particular, the choice of the agent’s domicile forum and the right of the agent to claim indemnity in case of termination of contract, see Directive 86/653/CEE and art. 1751 of the Italian Civil Code), do not come into play in the specific case.
For further information, please contact us by using the form.
avv. Sondra Faccio