THE EUROPEAN UNION AND EUROPEAN STATES’ DEVELOPMENTS 487 was an administrative proceeding condemnation vis-à-vis HRS30, in which the OTA was prohibited to use the parity clause in its contracts having referenced section 1 of the Act against Restraints of Competition – GWB31, Art. 101(1) TFEU and also section 20(1) linked to sections 19(1) and (2), no. 01 GWB, related to restraint of competition and prohibited conduct of dominant undertakings, in December 2013. Not satisfied with this decision, HRS appealed to Düsseldorf Regional Court32 to change this judgement. With this new analysis published on 9 January 201533, the condemnation and consequent prohibition were maintained34. A second case, related to Booking.com, where the BKartA forbade the OTA to use the narrow parity clause in December 201535. In similar behaviour, Booking.com also appealed to the Düsseldorf Regional Court to modify the conviction without success. On 4 May 2016, the Regional Court decided to preserve the effects of the BKartA’s decision, prohibiting the narrow parity clause from being used in Booking.com contracts36. Nevertheless, there was another decision altered that ruling37 on 4 June 2019. That day, the Düsseldorf Regional Court decided that the parity clause did not harm the competition and cancelled the aforementioned BKartA decision in face of HRS. In its argument, the Regional Court also indicated that the prohibition of the parity clause encourages a free riding effect from the hotels on the platform. In other words, using the platform to know the hotels of the target city, and concluding the contract in the direct site of the hotel. Based on the opposite ideas of the judgements, it is possible that the Federal Constitutional Court38 will be required to solve the conflict in relation to old and new judgements of BKartA and the Düsseldorf Regional Court. 30 Case B9 66/10, available at https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidung/DE/Entscheidungen /Kartellverbot/2013/B9-66-10.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. 31 In German, Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen. In English. 32 In German, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf. 33 VIKart 1/14 (V), of 9 January 2015 available at http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/olgs/duesseldorf/j2015/ VI_Kart_1_14_V_Beschluss_20150109.html. 34 EZRACHI, Ariel. The competitive effects of parity clauses on online commerce. European Competition Journal, v. 11, no. 2-3, 2015, pp. 488-519. 35 Case B 9121/13, available at https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidung/DE/ Entscheidungen/Kartellverbot/2015/B9-121-13.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4. 36 VIKart 1/16 (V), of 4 May 2016, available at http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/olgs/duesseldorf/j2016/VI_ Kart_1_16_V_Beschluss_20160504.html. 37 Kart 2/16 (V), of 4June 2019, available at https://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/olgs/duesseldorf/j2019/ Kart_2_16_V_Beschluss_20190604.html. 38 In German, Bundesverfassungsgericht.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==