Opinion of the Belgian Competition Authority on a price list for veterinary services

On 28 February 2024 and 14 January 2025, the Belgian Veterinary Association (“BVA”) asked the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) to deliver an informal opinion on a fee schedule for veterinary services that the BVA was considering establishing. The proposed fee schedule was based on Article 19 of the Code of Ethics for Veterinarians.

This proposal was inspired by a German regulation called the “Gebührenordnung für Tierärztinnen und Tierärzte” (“GOT”), which governs veterinary fees in Germany, in particular on the basis of a fee schedule.

The relevance of the GOT in Competition law

In its informal opinion of 3 February 2025, published on 3 September 2023, the BCA first analysed the relevance of the GOT with regard to the application of Competition law to the proposed tariff schedule in Belgium. It began by pointing out that the GOT originated from the German federal government on the basis of a federal ordinance on veterinarians. Therefore, in Germany, the application of this GOT could not fall within the scope of Competition law, since it did not originate from an association of undertakings such as the BVA in Belgium, but came directly from a German federal ordinance. Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) and Article IV.1(1) of the Belgian Code of Economic Law Code (“CEL”) apply to agreements between undertakings or any decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices and not to acts of States acting within the framework of their public missions.

Is the BVA an association of undertakings?

The BCA then ruled on the BVA’s status as an association of undertakings. In accordance with the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) and the practice of competition authorities, veterinary associations can be considered associations of undertakings because veterinarians provide veterinary services for remuneration and therefore engage in an economic activity, which qualifies them as undertakings. Furthermore, the BVA represents all veterinarians. While disposing of regulatory powers, the BVA acts as a regulatory body for the veterinary profession, the practice of which constitutes an economic activity.

Does the proposed measure constitute a restriction on competition?

Horizontal price fixing between companies is considered a restriction of competition “by object” according to European case law and the consistent practice of the BCA. It is considered particularly harmful to the market because it leads to price increases to the detriment of consumers and is explicitly prohibited by Articles 101 of the TFEU and IV.1 of the CEL.

Several rulings by the CJEU in the Orde van Dierenartsen, Lietuvos Notarai and CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria cases confirm that the imposition of fixed or minimum rates by professional associations constitutes a violation of competition.

According to the BCA, in the case of the BVA, the establishment of a mandatory fee schedule for veterinary services would prevent practitioners from competing on price, thereby depriving consumers of more advantageous rates.

Even indicative or recommended prices can have an anti-competitive effect by encouraging professionals to align their fees. Although certain restrictions may be justified by legitimate objectives of general interest, such as the independence of veterinarians or the quality of care, such measures must be necessary and proportionate, and must not eliminate all competition. However, in this case, less restrictive alternatives exist, such as ethical rules governing the individual setting of fees.

Furthermore, European case law excludes the possibility of justifying a restriction “by object” on ethical or professional grounds.

Finally, although an exemption could theoretically be granted under Article 101(3) of the TFEU, this would require strict conditions to be met, in particular efficiency gains and benefits for consumers, which seem difficult to achieve in the context of horizontal price fixing.

In conclusion, the pricing regulation envisaged by the BVA constitutes a restriction of competition by object, which cannot be justified by ethical objectives, and falls fully within the scope of Competition law.

What are the consequences of this informal opinion from the BCA?

The BCA may issue informal opinions requested by economic actors. It should be noted that these opinions are not binding. These opinions do not prevent the BCA from opening a subsequent investigation. Finally, an informal opinion cannot be issued if a formal investigation is already under way on a similar subject.