X hits on this document

PDF document

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG Competition - page 35 / 113





35 / 113

have to be the action of all the undertakings in question. It only has to be capable of being identified as one of the manifestations of the collective dominant position.56

  • E.

    g., If different tasks

    • 75.

      This could, for instance, be the case if it could be shown that the dominant

undertakings had different tasks, for instance that each should “defend” a certain area or group

of customers in case of entry, and that the allegedly abusive conduct had only been observed on

the part of one of the dominant undertakings as entry had only occurred in the area or customer group that it was supposed to defend.

76. The case law so far with respect to exclusionary abuse of a collective dominant position has dealt with situations where there were strong structural links between the undertakings holding the dominant position.57

    • 5.5

      POSSIBLE DEFENCES: OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATIONS AND EFFICIENCIES Efficiencies that outweigh negative effect on competition Domco bears burden of proof

    • 77.

      Exclusionary conduct may escape the prohibition of Article 82 in case the dominant

undertaking can provide an objective justification for its behaviour or it can demonstrate that its conduct produces efficiencies which outweigh the negative effect on competition.58 The burden of




See Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar, cited in footnote 38, paragraph 66; Joined Cases T-191/98, T-212/98 to T-214/98, Atlantic Container Line, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 633. Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P, Compagnie maritime belge, cited in footnote 4; Case T- 228/97, Irish Sugar, cited in footnote 38; Joined Cases T-191/98, T-212/98 to T-214/98, Atlantic Container Lined, cited in footnote 5; Case T-193/02, Piau, cited in footnote 6. See for instance Case 40/70 Sirena S.r.l. v Eda S.r.l. and others [1971] ECR 69, paragraph 17; Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH v Metro-SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG [1971] ECR 487, paragraph 19; Case 27/76 United Brands, cited in footnote 5, paragraphs 182-184; Case 77/77 Benzine en Petroleum Handelsmaatschappij BV and others v Commission [1978] ECR 1513, paragraphs 32-34; Case 395/87 Ministère public v Jean-Louis Tournier [1989] ECR 2521, paragraph46; Case 311/84 Centre belge d'études de marché - Télémarketing (CBEM) v SA Compagnie luxembourgeoise de télédiffusion (CLT) and Information publicité Benelux (IPB) [1986] ECR 3261, paragraph 27; Joined cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission (Magill) [1995] ECR 743 paragraph 55; Case T- 30/89 Hilti, cited in footnote 18, paragraphs 102-119; Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak International SA v Commission (Tetra Pak II), paragraphs 115, 136 and 207; Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar, cited in footnote 38, paragraphs 167,188-189 and 218; Case C-163/99 Portuguese Republic l v Commission [2001] ECR 2613, paragraph 53.

Document info
Document views500
Page views500
Page last viewedThu Jan 19 09:13:06 UTC 2017