Flashcards
(Cases) Competition Law II
Cards in this deck (17)
- 1Hilti AG v Commission (Case T-30/89A) [1990] ECR II-163 Hiltiissue with definition of RPM
case: nail gun producer commissioned its own report in an attempt to show that the RPM for nail guns attempting to show that RPM was more than nail guns, but for all industrial fasteners. Thus arguing that if the RPM was accepted, Hilti's place in that market would have been relatively small and would not be in breach of 102. However commission rejected this argument. Hilt was the dominant producer in the market and in breach of 102. - 2United Brands Co v Commission (Case 27/76) ECR 207issue arose as to whether bananas were part of the overall fruit market or a separate market. id of the RPM was important as the resulting market share. United Brands only had a small share of the fruit market as a whole. This would have made it impossible for the company to have been in a dominant position. Yet it had 40-50% of the banana market. = dominant position in banana market. = sub market
- 3Euroemballage Corn and Continental Can Co Ltd (Case 6/72) [1973] ECR 215acquired a German company and transferred its shares in that company to a new subsidiary. used the subsidiary to acquire a second company. Commission decided that the first acquisition and the establishment of the subsidiary gave continual can a dominant position in three distinct markets.
Second acquisition abused dominant position as it eliminated almost all competition. Court however held that the commission had failed to prove that these markets differed from the more general market of light metal containers. eg could those in canned fruit not easily switch production? acted as counterweight and was upheld. - 4Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie Michelin NV v Commission (Case 322/81) [1983] ECR 3461 Michelin Icourt rejected Michelins argument that there was as single market for replacement tires. Held that there were two markets, heavy and light vehicles. no demand substitution and the two types were used with different products. No elasticity of supply as the production plant would have to be modified to produce other tire.
Court held that Michelin was dominant in the market and abused it as by offering financial rebates etc and pressured dealers to hit sales targets effecting supply choice. - 5Microsoft (Commission Decision 2007/53/EC)good example of low supply substitutability. Commission found that pc operations systems and two others constituted their own separate markets. b/c there was low supply substitutability between them. found that each had dominant position in each market and fines were induced.
- 6Hugin Kassaregister AB v Commission (Case 22/78) [1979] ECR 1869 HuginSwedish firm Hugin manufacture cash registers. Lipton UK serviced the registers in London. could not use any spare parts other than those produced by Hugin. which in turn was able to prevent them using other spare parts through asserting its design rights. Commission held that here was a separate market for spare parts for Hugin registers, Hugin was dominant in the market and that a refusal by hugin to supply spare parts to firms who hired out and maintained cash registers could amount to an abuse of dominant position. Court agreed.
- 7Alsatel v Novasam SA (Case 247/86) [1988] ECR 5987 Alsatelcourt held that the relevant market in which Alsatel operated was the market for the rental and maintenance of telephone installations in France as a whole, not as Novasam argued the market for the region of Alsace-Lorraine. Private installers and to be authorized by the French authorities and those authorizations applied throughout France. therefore the conditions of competition were sufficiently homogeneous throughout the whole of france notwithstanding that Alsatel only populated in Alsace-Lorraine.
- 8B&I Line plc v Sealink Harbours Ltd and Sealink Stenda Ltd [1992] 5 CMLR 255 B&I Line plcCourt had determined that a substantial part of ht EU should be judged not simply by geographical area but also by factors such as volume of trade. I.e airports and ports can be classified as substantial parts of the market
case: Holyhead port was found by commission to be a substantial part of the market for the volume of trade between Eire and the UK. Sesalink used its control of the port to introduce a new sailing schedule which suited the commercial interests of its ferries and adversely affected the docking of B&I's ferries. commission decided that this amounted to an abuse of saline's dominant position. - 9Nestle/Perrier (Commission Decision 92/553/EEC) [1992] OJ L 356/1relevant geographic market for mineral water was found to be restricted in France because consumers continued to privilege local products despite the fact of the integration of the Euro market.
- 10Benzine en Petroleum Handelsmaatschappij BV v commission (Case 77/77) [1978] ECR 1513 ABG Oilconcerned the OPEC oil crisis in which the members of OPEC increased the price of crude oil whilst reducing production. the asa members had imposed an embargo on shipments to states which had supported Israel during Yom Kippur war. Netherland was targeted by Embargo. Commission found that his shortage transformed the market in petrol for the duration of the crisis as independent firms sound that they could not buy petrol on the work market and so became completely dependent on a few large suppliers with oil refineries in the netherlands. Commission decided that BP had bused its dominant position at this time by cutting back supplies to ABG far more sharply than it had to tore customers. Court accepted commissions analysis but held that BP had not abused its position.
- 11Society Italiana Vetro v Commission (Case T-86 and 77-78/89) [1992] ECR KKI-1403 Italian Flat Glasscommission maintained that three Italian Undertakings operation gin the flat glass industry had aggregated market shares of 79% and 95% in the non automotive and automotive markets. presented themselves on the market as a single economic entity. was seen by the commission as sufficient evidence of collective dominance, however court held more evidence was needed beyond economic ties and single economy entity.
- 12Hoffmann-La Roche & Co v Commission (Case 85/76) [1979] ECR 461court stated that the relationship between the market shares of the undertaking concerned and of tis competitor , especially those of the next largest, technological lead of an undertaking i.e. highly developed sales network and the absence of potential competition are relevant factors.
1 enables competitive strength of undertaking to be assessed
2. represent in themselves technical and commercial advantages
3. the consequences of the existence of obstacles preventing new competitors form having access to market. - 13Akzo Chemie BV v Commission (Case C-62/86) [1991] ECR I-3359 AkzoAkko produced a chemical that could be used in both the manufacture of four and in the plastics industry. Sales to the plastics industry profit > than flour production. Akko reduced price for flour production to below average variable cost and drove out competition, Commission held to be predatory pricing Court agreed.
- 14Intel Corporation (Decision C(2009) 3726)intel was fined for providing system of generous rebates to Acer, Dell, Lenovo and NEC in return for buying all or nearly all of their CPU chips from Intel rather than the rival AMD. Also made direct payments to a chain of stores on condition that the chain only stocked computers containing intel chips. result was difficult for AMD to enter the market.
Commission held that the ability to compete and innovate was impaired leading to a reduction of choice on the market to the disadvantage of consumers.
INTEl = abusive. - 15Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission (Cases 6 & 7/73) [1974] ECR 223 CSCrefusal to supply
CSC refused to supply a competitor with material necessary for the manufacture of an end product was her to be abusive - 16British Leyland Plc v Commission (Case 226/84) [1986] ECR 3263system of vehicle registration in UK, manufacturer had to obtain national type approval for each model of vehicle which it manufactured. Once obtained, anyone seeking to register the vehicle fours on the road had to produce a certificate of conformity with the approved type which was issued by the manufacturer. Prices of euro cars was cheaper than right hand cars, = market developing in left hand drive cars being reimported into the UK. Leyland raised charge to distributors for issuing a certificate of conformity for left hand drive cars. Charge for right hand remained same.
Court accepted the commissions decision that this was an abuse of dominant position as the charge for left hand vehicles was excessive.
commission held fee was disproportionate to the economic value of the service being provided - 17Belgische Radio en Televisie (BRT) v Societe Belge des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs (Case 127/73) [1974] ECR 313 SABAMcooperative association of authors composers and publishers which commercially exploited all of the copyrights and other kindred rights of its members. standard contracts required members to assign all such rights over their current and future works to the association without drawing any distinction between different categories of this rights. Also retained rights after 5 years of withdrawing from association.
Court held SABAM abused its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions. Terms went far beyond what was absolutely necessary to attain objective.