Microsoft word - ct newsletter 1-2010 eng.doc

Chilean Competition & Trade Newsletter
1/2010

CHILE Fuel – ENAP / Pay TV – VTR
SWITZERLAND Resale Price Maintenance – Laboratories

I.
For Formal Defects The Chilean Court for the Free Competition Defence (CFCD) Rejected
Preliminary Measures Requested by Blue Oil Trading to Potentially sue Enap.

Blue Oil had requested the exhibition of certain documents of Enap, which would enable it to sue the
dominant Enap for blocking its entry into the Chilean market. The blockade would have consisted of
preventing Blue Oil to become global provider of Enap and impeding it to acquire fuel for direct or indirect
distribution to customers operating in mining, power generation, industrial production and transportation.
For the execution of the blockade, Enap would have refused to enroll Blue Oil as International Supplier
and delayed its registration as domestic customer for the purchase of diesel and petrol. The CFCD
considered the exhibition of documents unnecessary for entering the trial, as mandated by the Code of
Civil Procedure and that furthermore, the measure was not among those referred to the CFCD might order
according to that Code (CFCD 30/3/2010).
II.
CFCD Dismissed Charges of Abuse of Dominant Position against VTR by Fundación Chile
Ciudadano y RGB Producciones Digitales

The CFCD found that Fundación Chile Ciudadano lacked active legitimation to sue VTR. That is because
the foundation did not demonstrate actual or potential participation in the market directly affected by the
al eged anticompetitive activity attributed to VTR, or in related markets. The CFCD also considered that it
is not given to a particular claiming to represent the whole community, seeking to exercise functions which
the law expressly gave to the National Economic Prosecutor. The CFCD also rejected the al egations
involving the exclusion of the RGB´s channel Infonet from the VTR programmation. The CFCD considered
that exist alternative platforms that could demand the product of RGB and that even if this is not the case,
VTR would not restrict competition by excluding Infonet of its programmation, as such action does not, in
this case, have the ability enabling it to achieve, to maintain or to increase its dominance. (CFCD
18/3/2010).

III.
The Swiss Competition Commission (SCC) Fined Pfizer AG, Eli Lilly (Switzerland) and Bayer
for Resale Price Maintenance

The SCC found that resale price-fixing agreements for three medical drugs Viagra, Cialis and Levitra (not
reimbursed by the obligatory health insurance scheme), between manufacturers and distributors were
unlawful and imposed a fine of Sfr5.7 million (USD 5.3 mil ion aprox.) on the pharmaceutical companies
concerned. The three producers fixed resale prices by establishing recommended public prices that were
integrated into the computer systems of the industry branch or directly transmitted by wholesalers to
pharmacies and physicians who, in most cases, adhered to them when charging their patients. The
commission decided that these practices constituted unlawful resale price maintenance agreements within
the meaning of Article 5(4) of the Competition Act (SCC 8.12.2009).
For further information, please contact Oscar A. Corvalán A. ocorvalan@phr.cl +56 (2) 3785050
Nueva Las Condes Business Park – Torre Neruda – Rosario Norte 555 – Oficina 1.602 – Las Condes – Santiago – Chile Mesa Central (56-2) 378 5050 – www.phr.cl

Source: http://www.phr.cl/pdf/CT_Newsletter_1_2010_Fuel_TV_Pay_Laboratories.pdf