Cargando...
Fecha
2021-07-01
Derechos de acceso
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editorial
Aranzadi
Citas
Resumen
El sistema de tarjetas de pago es observado en cuanto a su adecuación a la normativa protectora de la libre competencia. Y esto es así desde hace décadas y hasta fechas recientes, en particular, en cuanto a las denominadas tasas de intercambio, esto es, las que paga el banco adquirente al banco emisor cuando se ha producido una operación con tarjeta de crédito. Interesa la evolución de los pronunciamientos de los tribunales europeos y, de forma destacada, un litigio con origen en una resolución de la autoridad de competencia húngara. Se trata de la STJUE de 20 de abril de 2020, Asunto C-228/18, referida a las tasas multilaterales
de intercambio (TMI) acordadas por un grupo de bancos y aplicadas a las operaciones realizadas con tarjetas Visa y MasterCard, los dos grandes operadores del sector. La relevancia de esta Sentencia que constituye claramente una Sentencia clave se concreta en ofrecer una consolidación del concepto de restricciones por objeto al clarificar algunos de los matices que se ofrecían y suponer un avance en la línea nítida adelantada por otras anteriores (como la recaída en el mismo año 2020 en Asunto Generics, aunque sobre medicamentos y acuerdos «pay for delay»). El trabajo culmina con una reflexión sobre la incidencia que la determinación de cuándo se está ante una restricción por objeto pueda tener en las restricciones verticales a la competencia.
The payment card system is under scrutiny for its compliance with Competition Law. This has been the case for decades and until recently, in particular with regard to the so-called interchange fees, i.e. the fee paid by the acquiring bank to the issuing bank when a credit card transaction has taken place. Of interest are the developments in several rulings of the European courts and, most notably, a dispute that originated in a Decision of the Hungarian Competition Authority. It is important to point out European Court of Justice ruling of 20 April 2020, Case C-228/18, concerning the multilateral interchange fees (MIF) agreed by a group of banks and applied to transactions made with Visa and MasterCard, the two major players in the sector. Therefore, the whole of this ruling – which is clearly a «key» is that it offers a consolidation of the view of the concept of restrictions by object by clarifying some of the nuances that were offered and by taking a clearer line dealing with previous rulings (such as the one delivered in 2020 in the Generics case, on medicines and «pay for delay» agreements). The article culminates with a reflection on the impact that the determination of when a restriction by object is involved may have on other types of restrictions, such as vertical restrictions on competition.
The payment card system is under scrutiny for its compliance with Competition Law. This has been the case for decades and until recently, in particular with regard to the so-called interchange fees, i.e. the fee paid by the acquiring bank to the issuing bank when a credit card transaction has taken place. Of interest are the developments in several rulings of the European courts and, most notably, a dispute that originated in a Decision of the Hungarian Competition Authority. It is important to point out European Court of Justice ruling of 20 April 2020, Case C-228/18, concerning the multilateral interchange fees (MIF) agreed by a group of banks and applied to transactions made with Visa and MasterCard, the two major players in the sector. Therefore, the whole of this ruling – which is clearly a «key» is that it offers a consolidation of the view of the concept of restrictions by object by clarifying some of the nuances that were offered and by taking a clearer line dealing with previous rulings (such as the one delivered in 2020 in the Generics case, on medicines and «pay for delay» agreements). The article culminates with a reflection on the impact that the determination of when a restriction by object is involved may have on other types of restrictions, such as vertical restrictions on competition.
Descripción
La versión registrada de este artículo, publicado por primera vez en “Revista de Derecho del Sistema Financiero (Aranzadi), RDSF, Julio 2021, págs. 167–194", está disponible en línea en el sitio web del editor: Aranzadi, https://doi.org/10.32029/2695-9569.02.04.2021 https://doi.org/10.5944/reppp.1.2013.10778
The registered version of this article, first published in “Revista de Derecho del Sistema Financiero (Aranzadi), RDSF, Julio 2021, págs. 167–194", is available online at the publisher's website: Aranzadi, https://doi.org/10.32029/2695-9569.02.04.2021 https://doi.org/10.5944/reppp.1.2013.10778
The registered version of this article, first published in “Revista de Derecho del Sistema Financiero (Aranzadi), RDSF, Julio 2021, págs. 167–194", is available online at the publisher's website: Aranzadi, https://doi.org/10.32029/2695-9569.02.04.2021 https://doi.org/10.5944/reppp.1.2013.10778
Categorías UNESCO
Palabras clave
Acuerdos, Decisiones y prácticas concertadas, Artículo 101(1) TFUE, Asunto Budapestbank C-228/18, Asunto Generics (pay for delay), Competencia, Figura del “facilitador”, Restricciones horizontales y verticales, Restricciones por objeto y por efecto de la competencia (concepto de restricción de la competencia “por objeto”), Sistemas de tarjetas de pago, Acuerdo interbancario de fijación de tasas de intercambio, Agreements, decisions and concerted practices, Article 101 (1) TFUE; Budapestbank case C-228/18, Generics case (pay for delay), European competition law, facilitator; horizontal and vertical restraints, restrictions by object and effect of competition, Card payment systems, Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees
Citación
Arroyo Aparicio, A.(2021). “Tarjetas de Pago y Derecho Antitrust”, Revista de Derecho del Sistema Financiero (Aranzadi), RDSF, Julio 2021, págs. 167–194, DOI: https://doi.org/10.32029/2695-9569.02.04.2021
Centro
Facultad de Derecho
Departamento
Derecho Mercantil