X hits on this document

PDF document

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG Competition - page 7 / 113





7 / 113

of a dominant company generates efficiencies and provided that all the other conditions of Article 81(3) are satisfied (see below section 5.3.3), such conduct should not be classified as

an abuse under Article 82 of the EC Treaty.6

Article 82 in combination with Article 86 9. Article 82 may be infringed by conduct of public undertakings or undertakings to which Member States have granted special or exclusive rights.7 Article 82 in combination with Article 86 may also be infringed where a Member State adopts or maintains in force measures,

which create a situation in which such undertakings are led to, or cannot avoid, abusing their

dominant position.8 The conditions of applying Article 82 to such abuses and the conditions for their justifications are laid down in Article 86 EC. Due to the specificity of Article 86 and its conditions, the application of Article 82 in conjunction with Article 86 remains outside the scope of the present discussion paper.

MS to take all appropriate measures to ensure that Treat obligations fulfilled 10. Article 10 of the Treaty obliges Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty. This article, which imposes on the Member States a duty to cooperate, read in conjunction with Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, requires the Member States not to introduce or maintain in force measures, even of a legislative or

regulatory nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to


These specific situations will not be addressed in the present discussion paper,


6 7



II-309, in particular paragraph 28, and Joined Cases T- 191/98, T-212/98 to T-214/98, Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II- 3275, paragraph 1456. See Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission (26 January 2005), not yet reported, paragraph 119. See for example Case 127/73 Belgische Radio en Televisie v SV SABAM and NV Fonior (BRT II) [1974] ECR 313; Case 41/83 Italian Republic v Commission of the [1985] ECR 873; Case C-393/92 Municipality of Almelo and others v NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij [1994] ECR I-1477. Case C-18/88 Régie des télégraphes et des téléphones v GB-Inno-BM SA [1991] ECR I-5941, paragraph 20; Case C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraphs 26-29, Case C-242/95 GT-Link A/S v De Danske Statsbaner [1997] ECR I-4449, paragraph 33; Case C-203/96 Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV and Others v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer[1998] ECR I- 4075, paragraph 61; Case C-340/99, TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiane SpA and Others [2001] ECR I-4109 paragraph 44. See Case C-18/88 GB-Inno-BM, cited in footnote 8, paragraph 31; Case 267/86 Pascal Van Eycke v ASPA NV[1988] ECR 4769, paragraph 16; Case C-185/91 Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr v Gebrüder Reiff GmbH & Co. KG [1993] ECR I-5801, paragraph 14; Case C-153/93 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Delta

Document info
Document views184
Page views184
Page last viewedMon Oct 24 08:51:14 UTC 2016