Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hopefully you find the notes helpful, and in return I ask that you
please don’t send them on to others. To share them, please direct people to download the notes at
https://liamporritt.com, where 99% of my notes are available for free.
• Commission:
o Initiates policy and legislation
o Administers / enforces EU competition law – fact finding and
imposing fines / penalties
§ May be challenged by JR to General Court / CJEU
• Reg 1/2003 – National competition authorities also enforce EU law
Applies to Undertakings
Agreements
Concerted practices
Object / Effect
Object
1. Need not account for the intention of the parties (GSK v Commission)
2. Objective purpose of agreement = anti-competitive by nature
(regardless of other motives) (Competition Authority v Beef Industry
Development Society Ltd)
3. So likely to have negative effects that there is no need to examine actual
effect (Société Technique Minière; Établissements Consten; Groupement des
Cartes Bancaires)
o Beef Industry: Reduction of number of beef processors by
agreement = other legitimate objectives irrelevant for Art 101(1)
and objective object here = reduce competition
Effect
Damages
Factors
• Interchangeability or substitution
• ABG Oil case – crisis led to drop in supply of oil in Netherlands, creating
temporary potential dominance for a few companies (including BP)
Factors
1. Market share
o > 50% = dominance (Azko Chemie BV v Commission)
§ 91.8% in TetraPak = dominance
§ 70% in Intel Corp = dominance
o Lower may be dominant relative to other competitors
§ United Brands – 40-45% = dominant vs 17% of nearest
competitor
7. Unfair terms
o BRT v SABAM – SABAM administered, managed and exploited
copyrighted materials; took all rights to existing and future
material of members + for 5 years after membership ended; not
necessary to aims of association + abuse of dominance
• Only have to be acting in a way liable to affect trade between MSs (British
Leyland)
• Trade affected must be between MSs (Hugin)