Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements which have as their object or effect the restriction of competition. For the purposes of these Guidelines, the concept of `restriction of competition` includes the prevention and distortion of competition. Where the object of an agreement is to restrict competition, that is to say, it is capable, by its very nature, of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, there is no need to examine the actual or potential effects of the agreement. All agreements between traders, decisions of associations of undertakings and concerted practices of undertakings which have as their object the prevention, restriction or substantial distortion of competition or which lead to the prohibition, restriction or distortion of competition are prohibited under Article 5 of the Competition Act. Recently, the U.S. government and U.S. companies have been investigating non-poaching deals, as it is suspected that these horizontal deals will become anti-competitive in nature without poaching. In the United States, competition laws are called antitrust laws, and there has been criticism that non-poaching agreements violate antitrust laws. Therefore, in early 2018, U.S. Senator Cory Booker introduced a bill stipulating that non-poaching agreements in the context of franchising are illegal under antitrust law.

The nature of an agreement relates to factors such as the scope and purpose of the cooperation, the competitive relationship between the parties and the extent to which they pool their activities. These factors determine the types of potential competition concerns that may arise. Where a restriction of competition has been established in accordance with Article 101(1), Article 101(3) may be relied on as a plea. Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (see summary) places the burden of proof on the undertaking relying on that provision. Four cumulative conditions must be met for cooperation agreements to be exempted: if carried out correctly, horizontal integration offers many advantages. These include (but are not limited to) an increase in market power or market share, limited competition and increased other synergies. a non-binding agreement between direct competitors may amount to a restrictive horizontal agreement, depending on the circumstances. Horizontal integration can be a wise strategic choice for companies. When properly analyzed and executed, it can lead to increased market share, increased efficiency, reduced costs, and economies of scale. However, with horizontal integration, it is important to pay attention to the disadvantages, such as .B increased regulatory control, the inability to combine synergies and the destruction of assets that would make the whole process worthless and costly.

Here are some other benefits of horizontal integration: As mentioned above, horizontal integration takes place when two companies compete in the same industry at the same stage of production merge. One such example is Disney`s acquisition of Pixar in 2006. Disney was facing market stagnation and was rejuvenated after buying Pixar. Both companies were active in the same field (animation) and were able to merge their technology, thus increasing their market share and profitability. It is typical for companies in the process of horizontal integration to generate more revenue than if they were individual units. Prohibited horizontal cooperation may take the form of explicit agreements between undertakings or a corresponding mutual agreement. Decisions or agreements in which the behaviour of undertakings is effectively restricted or controlled at horizontal level are also prohibited. Such prohibited agreements may arise, for example. B, on the initiative of or within professional organisations. Price or royalty recommendations from professional organisations can therefore also be regarded as cartels.

Non-poaching agreements are an example of horizontal agreements between two companies to refuse to hire each other`s respective employees. There may be provisions built into these non-poaching agreements that stipulate that there will be no cold call to employees of each company for recruitment purposes. The starting point for the analysis of market power is the position of the parties on the markets affected by the cooperation. In order to carry out this analysis, it is necessary to define the relevant market(s) of the relevant market(s) on the basis of the Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market (see summary) and to calculate the common market share of the parties. If the combined market share is low, horizontal cooperation is unlikely to have restrictive effects on competition. Given the diversity of cooperation agreements and the different effects they may have in different market situations, it is impossible to indicate a general market share threshold above which sufficient market power can be assumed to have restrictive effects. Sometimes horizontal agreements can be created for the benefit of consumers by coordinating logistics in order to reduce business costs and make more efficient use of company capacity. In other cases, where time agreements are concluded between competitors on the market and the implication of pricing and price coordination is obvious, the agreement may be considered prohibited. Horizontal agreements are restrictive agreements between competitors operating at the same level of the production/distribution chain. Horizontal agreements which, directly or indirectly, have as their object, effect or effect liable to prevent, distort or restrict competition constitute infringements in themselves.

Section 4 of the Competition Protection Act No. 4054 (the „Competition Act“) prohibits them directly. Horizontal agreements on the exchange of competitively sensitive information may, depending on the circumstances, be regarded as horizontal anti-competitive agreements and may fall within the scope of Article 4 of the Competition Act. Whether an agreement is legally binding is not relevant to the assessment under competition law; The merger of Exxon and Mobil is another excellent example of horizontal integration. As sole proprietorships, the two companies were of similar size and operation and merged in 1999 to form a stronger company. The Guidelines also define the characteristics of certain types of cooperation agreements and apply the evaluation framework described above under Articles 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU to each of the following types of agreements: as with any process, certain disadvantages must be taken into account together with the advantages. Horizontal agreements can have a negative impact on the market in terms of price and product quality. On the other hand, horizontal cooperation can lead to significant economic benefits such as risk sharing, cost savings, sharing of know-how and acceleration of innovation. If these four criteria are met, the efficiency gains achieved by an agreement can be considered as offsetting the restrictions of competition they entail. Horizontal restriction of competition refers to an agreement or procedure restricting competition between undertakings operating at the same level of production or distribution, i.e.

actual or potential competitors. Horizontal integration offers many advantages. Pricing is a term associated with horizontal agreements. It is an agreement whereby several competing companies enter into a secret agreement to set the prices of their products in order to prevent real competition. Price fixing is a punishable violation of federal antitrust laws. Pricing also includes the secret setting of favorable prices between suppliers and preferred manufacturers or distributors in order to beat the competition. The guidelines set out general principles for the evaluation of the exchange of information on competition, including the assessment under Articles 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU, which apply to all types of horizontal cooperation agreements involving the exchange of information. For restrictive effects on competition to occur under Article 101(1) TFEU, the agreement must have or may have appreciable negative effects on at least one of the parameters of competition on the market, such as price, production, product quality and diversity or innovation. Such an assessment of the restrictive effects on competition must be carried out in the light of the factual legal and economic context in which competition would take place in the absence of the agreement.

The main and most common types of horizontal anti-competitive agreements include price fixing, bid-fixing, market sharing and refusal of business (group boycotts). These horizontal agreements usually take the form of an agreement, which is explained in a separate subcategory. Cooperation is `horizontal` when an agreement or concerted practice is concluded between actual or potential competitors. These guidelines also apply to horizontal cooperation agreements between non-competitors, for example between two undertakings operating in the same product markets but in different geographic markets without being potential competitors. These guidelines provide an analytical framework for the most common types of horizontal cooperation agreements to determine their compatibility with Article 101 TFEU. Horizontal cooperation can often lead to significant economic benefits if it is a means of risk sharing, cost savings, increased investment, pooling of know-how, improving product quality and diversity and accelerating the introduction of innovation. However, horizontal cooperation can lead to competition concerns if it has a negative impact on the market in terms of price, production, innovation or product diversity and quality. .