On 13 January 2014, the Commission announced that it had opened a formal procedure for reviewing licensing agreements between several major US film studios and Europe`s largest pay-TV companies, as licensing agreements could hinder the provision of pay-TV services beyond EU borders. In July 2016, the Commission agreed that one of the US film studios under investigation, Paramount, was not obliged to ban passive sales of a European pay-TV company outside its licence territory or to grant absolute territorial protection in that area for a period of five years. In its decision, the Commission found that the contentious clauses contained in Paramount`s licensing agreements were anti-competitive in nature, as they were intended to prohibit or limit passive cross-border sales and to grant absolute territorial exclusivity with respect to Paramount`s content. The Commission`s investigation into several other major US film studios and Europe`s largest pay-TV companies, including Canal Plus, which filed a motion in December 2016 to quash the Commission`s decision to accept Paramounts` commitment is ongoing. In July 2015, the Commission sent a statement of objections to several major US film studios and one of Europe`s largest pay-TV companies, on the grounds that the licensing agreements between them hinder the provision of pay-TV services across EU borders, both via satellite and via the internet. In July 2016, the Commission agreed to close the investigation into one of the major US film studios, while in December 2016, one of the European pay-TV companies under investigation filed an application before the Tribunal to quash the Commission`s decision (see question 28). Furthermore, in its 2003 decision on the Yamaha, the Commission found that “the distribution agreements in question, by limiting sales outside the territory and limiting the distributor`s ability to determine its resale prices, complement each other and pursue the same objective of artificially maintaining price differences in different countries.” If a contracting party occupies a dominant position in one of the contracts covered by an agreement, Article 102 of the TFUE (which governs the conduct of dominant firms) may also be relevant to the assessment of cartels and abuse of dominant position. However, the behaviour under Article 102 of the EUTF is taken into account when resolving the dominance of the agreement and is therefore not dealt with here. To what extent is a private application possible? Can non-parties to vertically restricted agreements obtain declarable judgments or claims for omission and seek damages? Can the parties make their own claims? What remedial measures are available? How long should a company expect private execution? Who is responsible for enforcing anti-competitive vertical restrictions? Where are there several competent authorities, how are cases attributed? Do governments or ministers have a role to play? Purchasing Offices: The Authority is reviewing the proposed commitments – The Competition Authority has opened several investigations to examine joint procurement agreements in the food distribution sector.