In which of the following situations do you see a possible violation of the Swiss Cartel Act (CartA)? Give reasons for your opinion.
a) The Swiss Federal Railways SBB conclude a contract with a kiosk operator, according to which the latter may exclusively sell press products in all SBB railway stations in Switzerland.
b) Publishers set binding prices for the sale of German-language books throughout Switzerland. These prices are passed on at all market levels through price maintenance agreements. The same prices therefore apply everywhere for 90 per cent of all German-language books.
c) The driving instructors’ association of Canton X provides its members with non-binding price recommendations, which are followed by the majority of driving instructors.
d) Kraftwerke AG refuses to transmit a competitor’s electricity via its grid for a large consumer, although it is adequately compensated for this.
e) X AG refuses to supply its dental products to online shops that do not have customer service, even though advice is not necessary and is not common abroad. X AG can enforce this because it is dominant in a sub-segment of these dental products and it is difficult to sell anything in the dental sector without the products of this sub-segment.
f) Y AG refuses to supply its herbal products to online shops that do not have customer service, although advice is not necessary and is not customary abroad. All herbal products sold by Y AG are also offered by competitors.
a) No antitrust (cartel) restriction because there are enough providers outside the SBB railway stations (ZBJV 7/8, 2001, p. 551 ff).
b) Restriction contrary to antitrust (cartel) law in the view of the Swiss Competition Commission because it prevents any price competition (ZBJV 7/8, 2001, p. 551 ff).
c) Antitrust (cartel) restriction according to the Swiss Competition Commission because the recommendation is followed by almost all driving instructors (ZBJV 7/8, 2001, p. 551 ff).
d) In the opinion of the Swiss Competition Commission, an antitrust (cartel) restriction (ZBJV 7/8, 2001, p. 555 ff).
e) In the opinion of the Swiss Competition Commission, an impermissible restriction of competition by X AG (vgl. ZBJV 7/8, 2001, p. 555 ff).
f) Not decided. Following the considerations under e), however, there should be no inadmissible restriction because Y AG is not dominant in the respective market.
Source: Thomas Gattlen, Allgemeine Rechtskunde für Fachhochschulen, Aarau 2002