Abstract
This article addresses the question whether anti-competitive effects must be demonstrated in cases concerning abuse of dominance. The case-law is moving in the direction of distinguishing between types of abuse that will always (or nearly always) restrict competition, and other types where a finding of an abuse of dominance will require that we look into the specific facts of the case. The author expresses some doubts about the viability of such an approach and argues that there are overlaps and similarities between various types of abuse of dominance, and great complexity is encountered in distinguishing between them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Case T-340/03 France Télécom v Commission [2007] ECR II-107, at para 130, upheld on appeal in Case C-202/07 P France Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I-2369.
Case C-209/10 Post Danmark, not yet reported.
Ibid., at para 22.
Ibid., at para 30.
Ibid., at para 38.
Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P Compagnie maritime belge transports and Others v Commission [2000] ECR I-1365.
Case C-52/07 Kanal 5 and TV 4 [2008] ECR I-9275.
Ibid., at paras 44–47.
Ibid., at para 48.
Case E-15/10 Posten Norge.
Posten Norge, at paras 127–132.
C-549/10 P Tomra and Others v Commission, not yet published.
Advocate General Mazák’s opinion in Tomra, at para 44.
Tomra, at para 39.
Tomra, at paras 44–45.
Tomra, at paras 68, 71.
Ibid., at para 72.
Ibid., at para 73.
T-286/09 Intel v Commission, not yet published.
Ibid. at para 72.
Ibid. at para 73.
Ibid. at para 77.
Ibid. at para 75.
Ibid., at para 78.
Ibid., at paras 98–99.
Ibid., at paras 143–144.
Ibid., at para 203.
Ibid., at paras 204 and 869.
Ibid., at para 212.
Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P RTE and ITP v Commission [1995] ECR I-743, Case C-7/97 Bronner [1998] ECR I-7791, Case C-418/01 IMS Health [2004] ECR I-5039.
Case C-52/09 TeliaSonera Sverige EU:C:2011:83, at paras 31 and 56.
Ibid., at para 46.
Ibid., at paras 69–72.
Ibid., at para 81.
Ibid., at paras 83–89.
Ibid., at paras 60–74.
Ibid., at para 64.
Ibid., at para 65.
Ibid., at paras 70–71.
Ibid., at para 73.
Ibid., at para 74.
Case C-553/12 P Commission v DEI, not yet published, at paras 66–68.
Ibid.
Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak v Commission, paras 134–136. Upheld on appeal, Case C-333/94 P Tetra Pak v Commission [1996] ECR I-5951.
OECD, Excessive prices, DAF/COMP(2011)18, available at http://www.oecd.org/competition/abuseofdominanceandmonopolisation/.
Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, at para 250.
Ibid., at para 252.
Ibid., at para 253.
Kanal 5 and TV4, at paras 27–28.
Case COMP/A.36.568/D3 Scandlines Sverige v. Port of Helsingborg
Ibid., at paras 150–151. See also Case COMP/A.36.570/D3 Sundbusserne v. Port of Helsingborg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article was originally prepared as a paper for Advanced Training in EU Antitrust Law, Forum for Judges, London 4–5 December 2014, organised by ERA and the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simonsson, I. Legal challenges arising from abuse of dominance cases. ERA Forum 16, 39–47 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0376-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0376-1