One way to distinguish between horizontal and vertical cooperation between the ECJ is to examine the case law. Thus, in Consten and Grundig, the ECJ did not follow the advice of the Advocate General (GA) and found that horizontal and vertical restrictions are contained in Article 101, paragraph 1. In particular, the GA argued that Article 101 of the EUTF did not apply to vertical agreements between one producer and its distributor, as they are not competitors to the other. However, the ECJ did not agree with the GA, on the grounds that the wording of Article 101 does not distinguish between horizontal and vertical agreements. Instead, the Tribunal found that the section applies to all agreements that could distort competition in the common market. In addition, it should be noted that the ECJ generally follows the ag`s advice and that the ECJ takes a different approach from that of the GA, as shown in the court`s firm decision, that the language of the contract does not suggest a distinction between horizontal and vertical agreements. The table below shows a specific text in the opinions of European jurisprudence and the GA on the differences between the horizontal and vertical agreement. An INTELLECTUAL property agreement cannot benefit from the category exemption for vertical agreements. If the main purpose of the agreement is not intellectual property, the category exemption can be used for vertical agreements. Otherwise, a category exemption, such as the category exemption, may apply to technology transfer. Intellectual property provisions in a vertical agreement are a sensitive subject in an already complex area, and professional legal advice is needed. EU competition law provides for several category exemptions that exclude certain regimes from the Article 101 ban. These category exemptions also apply to agreements that may be covered by the Chapter I ban.
(1) By Se Violation – does not require further study of the actual impact of the practice on the market or the intentions of those involved in this practice (i.e. horizontal market-sharing or customer sharing agreements). The ECJ makes less of a distinction between horizontal and vertical cooperation than that of the United States. This is probably because the ECJ is influenced by strong principles of market integration. The category exemption for EU vertical agreements exempts certain vertical agreements from the prohibitions covered by Chapter I or Article 101. While the category exemption applies to vertical agreements for the agreement in question, there is no need for further consideration of the agreement from a competition perspective. However, if the class exemption is not applicable, the Chapter I or Section 101 agreement needs further review to determine whether the agreement raises anti-competitive concerns. Another way to demonstrate that the ECJ does not make an important distinction between horizontal and vertical cooperation is that the Commission focuses on the economic benefits of vertical agreements, but that the Court of Justice does not examine market effects in all cases. In concrete terms, in the guidelines on vertical agreements, the Commission states that “certain types of vertical agreements can improve economic efficiency within a production or distribution chain … they can lead to lower transaction and distribution costs for the parties and to the optimization of their distribution and investment levels.