As a result, it remains to be seen whether the Competition Commission will propose to take remedial action to deal with exclusive leases in the context of the South African food retail sector (after the end of the market investigation) or whether Massmart (and/or other complainants) will attempt to reformulate a complaint in court and focus on certain shopping centres rather than an overall complaint against the existence of Exklu les rules of 1`ativité. The agreement has been submitted to the Competition Court, which makes the final decision to be upheld as an order. It is alleged that CAF entered into an agreement with Lagardère Sports S.A.S. on 12 June 2015. concerning the exclusive marketing of marketing and media rights of the main regional football competitions in Africa, including the African Cup, the African National Championship and the African Champions League, for the period 2017-2028. Caf and Lagardère Sports S.A.S. have previously entered into a similar marketing agreement for the marketing and media rights to CAF tournaments for the period 2009-2016. The consecutive and cumulative duration of the alleged exclusivity agreement is twenty years. It should be noted that the initiation of an investigation does not presuppose that the conduct under examination is anti-competitive and that none of the parties to the agreement has infringed the rules. In accordance with Part Three of the Regulation, the Commission will investigate the measures between CAF and Lagardère Sports S.A.S. in the agreements concluded to determine whether the alleged conduct has as its object or effect the preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the common market or in a substantial part of the common market.
In view of the above, the Commission invites all interested parties and the general public to submit their comments to the Commission. no later than 21 April 2017. On Tuesday, during the presentation of the company`s annual results, Pick n Pay chairman Gareth Ackerman announced that the food retailer would not impose exclusivity clauses and would try to conclude its agreement with the Commission. (Report by Nqobile Dludla. Editor by Jane Merriman) The Tribunal`s decision therefore does not go so far as to confirm that “exclusive leases” between retailers and shopping centres are inherently pro-competitive, but rather that parties wishing to demonstrate the anti-competitive effects of “exclusivity agreements” must do so with credible theories of harm supported by the necessary evidence. On Monday, the Commission said in a statement that agreements reached by retailers in non-urban areas will end immediately and expire from urban areas over the next five years. Although the respondents presented a number of exceptions to the Massmart complaint (including the “non-indication” of the lessors concerned, who are parties to the respective leases), the court did not have to rule on these exceptions. The General Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Massmart had failed to demonstrate that the exclusivity provisions contained in the leases had anti-competitive effects on the relevant market.
. . .