Anti-competitive agreements and abusive practices

Agreements restricting competition

Competition is harmed when companies in the same market – or at different levels of the supply chain – coordinate their behaviour instead of acting independently. This kind of coordination, known as a restrictive or anti-competitive agreement, may have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Such agreements are prohibited under competition law.

Examples include fixing prices or dividing up markets. Problems also arise when several companies with significant market power sign exclusive distribution agreements that prevent rivals or new entrants from accessing the market. These agreements are unlawful when they cause, or even risk causing, a significant restriction of competition in all or part of the national market (Article 2 of Law 287/1990).

The Authority also enforces EU competition law: when anti-competitive agreements affect trade between Member States, we act under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

In line with EU rules, we run a leniency programme to uncover secret agreements between companies (known as cartels). Companies that voluntarily report their involvement in a cartel and provide evidence of the infringement can benefit from full or partial immunity from fines (leniency programme), depending on how quickly they come forward and the quality of the information they provide (Article 15(2-bis) of Law 287/1990).

Abuse of dominance

A company holds a dominant position when it has sufficient market power to act largely independently of its competitors, suppliers and customers. This can occur when it controls a large market share, owns a well-known brand, or is the only operator with access to key inputs further up the supply chain.

Size alone is not enough to harm competition. Companies may need to operate on a large scale or across neighbouring markets in order to be efficient, and many grow by competing fairly – for instance, by offering products that better meet consumer needs, in terms of price and/or quality.

As a result, holding a dominant position is not unlawful in itself. What the law prohibits is abuse of dominance (Article 3 of Law 287/1990). Abuse arises when a company misuses its market power – either by exploiting consumers directly, or by excluding competitors in ways that ultimately harm consumers.

As with anti-competitive agreements, where abuse of dominance affects trade between EU Member States, the Authority enforces EU competition rules (Article 102 TFEU).

We have set up a secure whistleblowing platform to strengthen enforcement against cartels and abuse of dominance. Competitors, consumers or employees can use it to report suspected breaches anonymously and share evidence to help our investigations.

Abuse of economic dependence

A company does not need to hold a dominant position to misuse its power. In one-to-one contracts, stronger companies sometimes exploit their bargaining position to impose unfair terms on smaller trading partners, creating a serious imbalance of rights and obligations. This conduct is prohibited under national law and is known as abuse of economic dependence.

In addition to tackling abuse of dominance, we can step in when abuse of economic dependence threatens competition or market functioning (Article 11 of Law 57/2001). A key consideration in assessing economic dependence is whether the weaker party could reasonably resort to satisfactory alternative trading partners in the market (Article 9 of Law 192/1998).