Past week, the European Fee adopted an up-to-date version of its Casual Guidance Notice (“the IGN”), the system that allows enterprises to search for clarity with regards to the compliance of particular pursuits with EU competitiveness law. The material of the IGN is animated by “steering letters”, informal files meant to present authorized certainty to undertakings dealing with novel or unresolved queries that can not be answered by using recourse to current means, these types of as circumstance law of the Union Courts or Fee tips. The See replaces its previous counterpart, which was issued just after the entry into power of Regulation 1/2003. This brief piece evaluates no matter whether the updated Notice provides about significant discrepancies. As the title suggests, it is quite tough to argue that it does.
As recognised, the modernization of European competitors law observed the discontinuation of the notification course of action, in accordance to which, undertakings were predicted to notify their meant operations to the Commission. After examination, the Commission would in turn give the undertaking with a detrimental clearance determination, transforming the provisional validity of a observe into official validity. However, Union enlargement and the completion of the single market place in the 1990s heavily increased the workload of the Commission, prompting it to rely on rapid and informal ways to deliver assurances to organizations. Towards this background, the convenience letter was born.
Given that Regulation 1/2003 abolishes the notification course of action, undertakings effectively relied on current steering, in the sort of decisional practice, tips, and case law, to self-evaluate the compatibility of their pursuits with competitors law. Back in the day, several commentators lamented the diminished option for the Commission to concern casual assistance. Some, like Cortese, (inaccurately) speculated that non-infringement conclusions enshrined less than Write-up 10 of the Regulation could establish fruitful. In its place, the Fee opted for adopting a very simple Observe, below the auspices of which only individuals ventures increasing actually novel competitiveness law inquiries would be acquired.
The observe document of the old Recognize has been practically nothing shorter of abysmal. As the Fee itself concedes, considering the fact that 2004, handful of undertakings approached it to get hold of steering letters, and none succeeded. The key purpose driving the disappointment is the point that direction letters represented an “all-reduction, no-acquire” problem. In certain, the Observe essential quite a few standards to be happy for the Fee to look at issuing a direction letter – which supplied little value to its receiver thanks to a lack of binding authorized consequences.
Distinct Distinct but Very same?
How does the revised Casual Direction Notice fare in assuaging the deficiencies of its expired variation? In line with the older Observe, the IGN sets out a variety of strict requirements that undertakings want to meet in buy to be suitable for a steering letter. In other text, gratifying these circumstances only opens the route to an application for the letter, not its reception. Basically, there are two this kind of circumstances: a genuinely novel competition law issue that continue to be unanswered by current sorts of assistance, and a beneficial preliminary assessment by the Commission concerning the soundness of the application.
The second criterion establishes whether or not it is legitimate to supply advice on the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU to the agreement or unilateral exercise in dilemma. It depends on the evaluation of a plethora of additional sub-requirements, which include:
- The Commission’s curiosity in supplying guidance, which refers to the opportunity existence of extra value to be derived from clarifying the software of the law by a direction letter. The Fee decides this added worth to authorized certainty by thinking of the economic relevance of the items and solutions worried by the exercise, irrespective of whether the exercise is in line with its enforcement priorities or Union desire, the magnitude of investments accompanying the activity, and regardless of whether it expects the exercise to manifest commonly all through the EU.
- Lis pendens, which implies that in situations where the contents of the novel problem (or very similar inquiries) are the subject matter to proceedings right before the Union Courts, Member State courts, or a countrywide opposition authority.
There are other questionable aspects of the IGN that did not undergo any transformation by any means. For occasion, there nonetheless is a prerequisite to give in depth details for the envisaged agreement/follow, and the Commission gets to preserve that data for any foreseeable future proceedings. In addition, in instances where undertakings control to prevail over the previously mentioned hurdles and get hold of a steerage letter, the advice contained therein is conditional upon the factual conditions provided.
Additionally, the Commission emphasizes that direction letters issued through the IGN continue to be a mere ingredient of the in general “self-evaluation bundle” they confer no legal rights on undertakings and produce no binding power.
And finally, the IGN preserves the have to have for a concern to conform to the enforcement priorities of the Commission.  The reasoning at the rear of this rule is to protect against the indirect resurrection of convenience letters. This criterion lowers the likelihood of an application being designed. Considering the fact that undertakings need to offer specific data on their real or opportunity organization procedures, the wide swath of discretion accorded to the Fee with regard to designating its enforcement priorities endangers the prospective clients of getting a assistance letter. 
It is not difficult to envisage that in these types of a condition, undertakings will experience as if they proficiently incriminate on their own, specially looking at that the Commission is at flexibility to open up infringement proceedings less than Regulation 1/2003, based on or relying on the details supplied by the enterprise. The Commission’s liberty to do so has been lengthy verified in instances like BVGD and Diamanthandel.
In Research of a Fall of Alter
Even while the IGN largely reflects the point out of participate in of the aged system, it also provides about minor distinctions. Even so, these changes are mostly cosmetic and mirror the proven circumstance legislation.
As proven, the Fee might not be estopped from relying on the contents of a request for a assistance letter to initiate more proceedings. The new IGN qualifies this statement by incorporating that, in circumstances where by an endeavor depends on a assistance letter, in very good faith, to go ahead with an agreement or follow, the Fee will not impose monetary penalties.
At first look, this modification may possibly appear to be like a welcomed improvement. Nonetheless, the actuality is additional elaborate and largely illusory. Very first, contemplate that pecuniary penalties constitute merely the immediate charges an undertaking faces in case of a productive prosecution. There are also oblique prices associated when the Fee strikes down a advanced world-wide-web of agreements or a notably high priced organization venture.
As quite a few Advocate-General opinions remarked, the steering offered by the Fee could guide undertakings to derive realistic expectations that need to have to be accounted for, need to the authority desire to transform again on an earlier blessing, particularly as the interval in between the letter and an investigation extends additional.
Next, the commitment that bona fide undertakings will not incur a fantastic arrives with its have clarification. Appropriately, if the factual factors furnished by the undertaking that gave increase to a steerage letter materially modify, the undertaking are unable to be taken to have acted in very good religion. Even while the IGN does not outline “substance change”, specifics can be teased out from scenario legislation. For instance, Langnese – Iglo, confirms that the entry of new rivals or a (slight) alteration in the market structure (these types of as an increase/lower of current market shares) qualify as alterations considerable enough to justify the retraction of a advice letter. If a eco-friendly-lighted settlement turns out to be a successful business and generates industry shares for the undertaking, it would as a result be fairly straightforward for the Commission to invoke that materials modify has transpired, and the endeavor had thus not acted in excellent faith. In my look at, these kinds of a possibility by yourself transforms the IGN mechanism into an efficiency offence in disguise. 
Aside from the higher than details, a genuine novelty does existing itself in the IGN: the inclusion of “Union curiosity” in the standards for evaluating regardless of whether to challenge a advice letter. Set briefly, together with its enforcement priorities, the Commission will be empowered to also look at the significance of an envisaged agreement (these as a non-totally purposeful joint enterprise) vis-à-vis assignments of frequent European desire. The prospect of elevating the pandemic-induced Non permanent Framework of comfort letters into a normalized framework has been permeating antitrust discussions currently. In that regard, the provision of a comfort letter to GAIA-X, a consortium of European know-how companies working on data interoperability and cybersecurity, appears like a frontrunner of an emerging development.
The revised casual advice observe provides minor included worth. A lot of the document stays loyal to its previous counterpart, and the revisions that do adhere out have a tendency to be either recitations of existing case legislation or incapable of inducing dramatic alter.
Even though the specific inclusion of a Union curiosity criterion in the ailments for issuing a guidance letter is truly novel, its concrete results may depart one thing to be sought after. All in all, it would be somewhat astonishing not to see an additional footnote in a Fee report a long time from now, lamenting that undertakings are reluctant to use the IGN. The fundamental rationale would be alternatively distinct: guidance letters nonetheless signify an all-decline, no-obtain scenario.
 Again in the days of Regulation 17 (changed by Regulation 1/2003), the Fee would from time to time close a request for a comfort and ease letter by assuring the undertaking that its carry out does not constitute an enforcement precedence (“soreness letter”).
 Even though the extent of discretionary flexibility the Commission enjoys is not simply discernible from the situation legislation. For occasion, in Beef Industry Progress Culture, there is an implicit argument that, even in times of crisis, the Commission can’t shy absent from investigating methods that are most likely anticompetitive by object. Yet another case in point in this regard is BP v Commission. Perplexingly, in people cases involving prospective “by object” arrangements, the place it may perhaps be argued that the Commission is “compelled” to concern a guidance letter, it would have no incentive to do so – considering that it can initiate proceedings to appraise a probable infringement as a substitute.
 There is also controversy about whether the Commission would be equipped to basically adjust its authorized evaluation of an agreement/exercise to override an earlier assistance letter. The case legislation responses that issue in the beneficial, diminishing the small worth presented by the IGN even even further.