ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. On 10 May 2022, the Commission adopted a new Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 (VBER 2022). The VBER 2022 replaced the previous Vertical Restraints Block Regulation 330/2010 (VBER 2010, also referred to as the VRBE in this Practice Note) on 1 June 2022. This Practice Note was drafted for the VBER 2010. NOTE—The VBER 2010 expired on 31 May 2022 and was replaced by the VBER 2022 with effect from 1 June 2022. Under Article 10 VBER 2022, there was a 12 month transition period (ending on 31 May 2023) to accommodate pre-existing vertical agreements already in force on 31 May 2022 which satisfied the conditions for exemption provided in the VBER 2010 on 31 May 2022 but which did not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided in the VBER 2022. This Practice Note is therefore for background information only. For an assessment of franchising agreements under Article 101 TFEU, the VBER 2022 and the Commission’s 2022 Guidelines on Vertical

Joint ventures will typically be the means by which companies enter into a new market and develop new products. The concept covers many different types of situations, ranging from: • structural arrangements that create or change the economic control of a legal entity: ◦ joint venture companies ◦ partnerships ◦ changes to shareholder control, and • non-structural joint ventures: ◦ contractual joint projects ◦ informal (undocumented) collaborations A key factor for many joint venture arrangements is the degree of 'control' held by the parties—though this is viewed differently in different contexts. One area in which this is an important consideration is EU competition law. To this end, a joint venture's treatment under EU competition law will differ depending on whether the arrangement is 'concentrative' (structural) or 'cooperative' (non-structural). Structural joint ventures and merger control When a joint venture produces a lasting structural change in the market (ie by creating a new market player and/or fusing specific activities of two pre-existing players) it may fall

This Checklist summarises the competition law considerations relevant to both structural and non-structural joint ventures (both merger control rules and antitrust laws). Structural or non-structural? The key consideration will be to determine whether a proposed joint venture is structural or non-structural/cooperative; the answer to this will determine how the joint venture is to be assessed. Structural joint ventures • a structural joint venture will include arrangements that produce long-lasting structural changes to the market by creating or changing the economic control of a legal entity, for example: ◦ the creation of a joint venture company ◦ the creation of a separate partnership between the parents ◦ changes to shareholder control • structural joint ventures may fall within merger control rules (depending on the relevant jurisdictional tests and notification thresholds being met). If merger control rules don't apply, it will be necessary to consider antitrust rules Non-structural/cooperative joint venture • a non-structural and/or cooperative joint venture will not include any changes to the economic control of any legal entity, for example: ◦ a contractual joint project

A common form of IP dispute involves one party—usually the claimant—alleging infringement of its patent, and the defendant in return challenging the patent’s validity. Such disputes are frequently settled by agreement. While not unlawful per se, such agreements have the potential to infringe Article 101(1) TFEU. This has been confirmed in a number of European Commission (Commission) enforcement decisions and subsequent EU Court rulings. The Commission has also issued guidance on this issue. European Commission guidelines Section 4.3 of the European Commission’s (the Commission) guidelines on the application of Article 101 TFEU to technology transfer agreements (the TT Guidelines) concerns settlement agreements. On this topic, the TT Guidelines note in particular that: • settlement agreements in the context of technology disputes are (as in many other areas of commercial disputes) in principle a legitimate way to find a mutually acceptable compromise to a bona fide legal disagreement. On the other hand, challenges to the validity and scope of technology rights are part of the normal competitive process in certain sectors

This document aims to track and summarise legislative, guidance and other policy developments which help reveal the approach of global competition authorities in tackling the issue of how competition law can contribute towards achieving sustainability objectives. 2026 Jurisdiction and body Details Developments France (Autorité de la Concurrence—AdC) The AdC launches a consultation as part of a review of informal guidance in the area of sustainability • Press release published—04/06/2026 Belgium (Belgian Competition Authority) The Belgian Competition Authority publishes its guidelines on sustainability agreements • Press release published—02/04/2026 France (Autorité de la Concurrence—AdC) The AdC publishes informal guidance on the ReUse project to deploy a standardised deposit-return scheme for food packaging in France • Informal guidance published—23/02/2026 UK (CMA) CMA issues informal guidance on the Landscape Enterprise Networks scheme • Informal guidance published—23/01/2026 2025 Jurisdiction and body Details Developments Belgium (Belgian Competition Authority) The Belgian Competition Authority informally authorises sustainability agreement to commercialise only compostable coffee pods • Press release published—19/12/2025 Belgium (Belgian Competition Authority) The Belgian Competition Authority launches a consultation on its draft guidelines for sustainability agreements •

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a trade organisation established in 1960 by Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, UK and Austria. The EFTA was created to function as an intergovernmental organisation for the promotion of free trade and economic integration between its Convention States, as an alternative to the newly established European Economic Community (EEC), which subsequently developed into the European Community (EC) and then the European Union (EU). Finland joined in 1961, Iceland in 1970 and Liechtenstein in 1991. By that time Denmark, Portugal and the UK had left the EFTA to join the EEC. In 1989, the Member States of the EC and EFTA agreed to negotiate an agreement establishing a single market encompassing the EC (now EU) and the participating EFTA States. The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement entered into force on 1 January 1994. Switzerland signed the Agreement in May 1992 but did not ratify it after its electorate and cantons rejected EEA membership on 6 December 1992. Austria, Finland and Sweden subsequently left EFTA to join the EU. Today, the

These FAQs are intended as a quick reference point for staff who come into contact with competitors on how we can best achieve our business goals in a way that is consistent with competition law when gathering competitive intelligence, and/or those who are involved in the pricing process. If you do not find the answer to your question or concern in this document, you must contact [insert, eg the legal team] immediately. 1 Meeting with competitors—FAQs Meetings with competitors (or where competitors are present) pose a high risk of competition law compliance issues arising. 1.1 Can I attend an industry association meeting where competitors will be present? Yes, but with caution. These type of meetings can become problematic if confidential or commercially-sensitive information is shared or discussed. 1.2 Can I have informal chats with competitors at conferences or social events? Yes, but you must steer clear of business-sensitive topics. Even casual conversations can be scrutinised if they touch on competition-sensitive areas. 1.3 What can I say if a competitor approaches me at an industry event and asks me how business is going? You should only

1 Introduction 1.1 Competition benefits both businesses and consumers. It shows companies where they need to improve; encourages organisations to strive for greater efficiency, become more innovative, more productive, and ultimately be better businesses. 1.2 We run our business[es] with integrity and in an honest and ethical manner. All of us must work together to ensure [it OR they] remain[s] strictly within the boundaries of competition law. 1.3 This policy is a crucial element of that effort. It has the full support of the [insert, eg board]. It sets out the steps all of us must take to comply with competition law in our business. 2 What is competition law and how does it affect us? 2.1 Competition law is designed to protect businesses and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour, and safeguard effective competition. All businesses must comply with competition law and there can be serious consequences for businesses and individuals, including directors, for non-compliance. These can include heavy fines, prison sentences, director disqualifications and reputational damage. 2.2 Enforcement examples include [insert specific enforcement examples from the industry in which your business is active]. 2.3 [Competition law

Please click for an Excel version of this register. General Course name/description and reason for training. Course name/description [Insert

Corporate communications are monitored by competition regulators, so it is important to not create a misleading or inaccurate impression of the legality of our activities in our communications. A poor choice of language (whether in press releases, media interviews or published company documents) that does not accurately state the facts can be damaging in any investigation by competition authorities and to our reputation. This guide provides key information for PR and communications staff to help you recognise competition law compliance issues, and practical tips on managing PR and communication high risk areas. 1 At all times you must: 1.1 stick to the facts; 1.2 state clearly the source of any pricing or market share information; 1.3 seek legal advice before speculating about the legality of any action. 2 Price announcements Be careful when making announcements about price changes to ensure these do not inadvertently amount to anti-competitive price signalling, eg by ensuring: 2.1 announcements are clearly intended for customers

1 General information Date of this report [Insert date] Date of last report [Insert date] Name of person submitting report [Insert name] 2 Action points arising from last report Action point Person responsible Status [Insert action point] [Identify person responsible for this action point] [Insert status] [Insert action point] [Identify person responsible for this action point] [Insert status] [Insert action point] [Identify person responsible for this action point] [Insert status] [Insert action point] [Identify person responsible for this action point] [Insert status] 3 Executive summary This report sets out the following matters: 3.1 summary

1 General information Date of review [insert date] Person(s) conducting review [insert name(s)] 2 Review and findings Have you conducted a fresh organisation-wide risk assessment in the last year?See Precedent: Competition law compliance—organisation-wide risk assessment ☐ Yes☐ No—ensure you set an action point at section 3 to perform a fresh competition law compliance—organisation-wide risk assessment Have you conducted a fresh culture self-assessment in the last year?See Precedent: Compliance culture self-assessment ☐ Yes☐ No—ensure you set an action point at section 3 to perform a fresh competition law compliance—culture self-assessment Have the organisation’s competition law compliance policies, controls and procedures been reviewed and updated in the last year? ☐ Yes☐ No—ensure