TO: Tran Minh Hai, Senior Lawyer

FROM: Bui Yen Trang

DATE: 06 September 2023
SUBJECT: Summary of the case Irish Sugar plc v Commission (1999)
Per your request, I have presented here the legal facts, issues and relevant laws to
provide you a quick understanding about the case Irish Sugar plc v Commission in
1999.
Parties
1. The plaintiff: Irish Sugar plc, a subsidiary of the Greencore Group, specialized
in manufacturing sugar.
2. The defendant: The European Commission
Legal facts
1. In the late 1980s Irish Sugar and its subsidiary Sugar Distributors Limited
(SDL) sought to restrict competition from imports of sugar from France and
Northern Ireland by offering selectively low prices to customers.
2. Since 1985, Irish Sugar had a 95 per cent share of the Irish sugar market. Irish
Sugar has restricted competition both from imports of sugar from other
Member States and from small sugar packers within Ireland.
3. Since at least 1985, Irish Sugar had offered rebates on purchases of bulk sugar
to industrial customers that exported part of their final product to other Member
States. The ‘sugar export rebates’ varied between customers for the same
tonnage of sugar and varied over time without any consistent relationship to
sales volumes or currency changes.
4. Since 1993, Irish Sugar had sought to restrict competition from small sugar
packers within Ireland by discriminating against them in the prices that it
charged for bulk sugar.
5. Irish Sugar offered rebates to certain wholesalers and food retailers that were
dependent on increases in their purchases of Irish Sugar’s own Siucra brand.
Based on section 82 of the EC Treaty, Irish Sugar was breaching this section due to
some following terms:
1. Abuse of a dominant position: Irish Sugar had a 95 percent share of the Irish
sugar market
2. Competitive restriction to both from imports of sugar from other Member
States and from small sugar packers within Ireland
 3. Discrimination against customers supplying only the Irish market and
distortion of the common sugar regime on exports to other Member States
4. A competitive disadvantage placed small sugar packers at a relative both to
other customers and Irish Sugar itself
5. Difficulty for small competitors to gain a foothold in the market
6. Detriment of both industrial and final consumers
Conclusions
In 1997, the Commission imposed a fine of 8.8 million on Irish Sugar plc The
rationale of the Commission’s decision was that Irish Sugar, which had a 95% share
of the Irish sugar market, had abused its position on the Irish sugar market by seeking
to restrict competition both from imports of sugar from other Member States and from
small sugar packers within Ireland.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information or
assistance.

Bui Yen Trang