have a special effect on competition, for instance if it follows a different business model than the established competitors on the market, while the exclusion of a competitor similar to the established competitors may not have the same negative effect on competition.
220.127.116.11 POSSIBLE DEFENCES: OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATIONS AND EFFICIENCIES
Examples of Objective Justification 224. It may be an objective justification for a termination of a supply relationship that an undertaking being terminated is not able to provide the appropriate commercial assurances that it will fulfil its obligations. The dominant company may also argue that it is terminating the supply relationship because it wants to integrate downstream and itself perform the downstream activities. In such a situation it falls upon the dominant company to show that consumers are better off with the supply relationship terminated. This situation should be compared with both the existing situation continuing and with the situation where the vertically integrated dominant company competes downstream with its input customers.
9.2.2 REFUSAL TO START SUPPLYING AN INPUT
Five conditions normally have to be fulfilled in order for a refusal to start supplying to be abusive: (i) the behaviour can be properly characterized as a refusal to supply; (ii) the refusing undertaking is dominant; (iii) the input is indispensable; (iv) the refusal is likely to have a negative effect on competition; (v) the refusal is not objectively justified.
18.104.22.168 BEHAVIOUR PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS REFUSAL TO SUPPLY
Refusal to supply new customers delaying tactics, etc.
225. In many cases it is evident that an undertaking is refusing to supply new buyers. In other situations it will have to be established that a certain type of behaviour in reality amounts to a refusal to supply. This can involve evaluating practices such as, for instance, delaying tactics in
supplying, imposing unfair trading conditions, or charging excessive prices for the input.