APPC Homepage

Clause 1 of Article 19 of the MRFTA does not distinguish the type and content of collaboration between competitors. In fact, the 1999 amendment does not require any market definition to determine the illegality of all unjust agreements. However, the Supreme Court ruled in spite of such differences. In addition, the Court still calls for clear market analysis of strong anticompetitive presumed agreements. First of all, the essence of illegal acts should be divided into illegal judgments. Also, determining the illegality of hardcore cartels does not require a detailed analysis process of relevant markets and market shares.

If the facts of the agreement are revealed and the effect of the agreement limiting competition is shown, competition restrictions should be accepted in principle. In other words, the method for determining the competitiveness of competition limiting factors based on market share is not directly measured y market dominance or competition limiting effect, but rather due to a decline or compromise of the market share. The Supreme Court is trying to consider competitiveness based on market share, certain collaboration may result in a clear competition limiting effect, such as lower prices and reduced product, even if the market share is low. Therefore, relevant market needs to be redefined in terms of criteria for identifying relevant markets and in terms of cartel evaluations.