Michalou, Anna

2016-03-11T01:00:19Z

https://repository.ihu.edu.gr//xmlui/handle/11544/12469

objective justification

abuse of dominance

environmental policy

masterThesis

This dissertation considers that the prohibition of anti-competitive unilateral conduct by dominant undertakings is not absolute, but allows for derogation. The ECJ has accepted and used the objective justification plea in order to legitimate prima facie abusive conducts that fulfill the demanded requirements. This thesis contains a detailed examination of the concept of ‘objective justification’, focusing in particular on its scope and the applicable legal conditions. An analysis also of the notions of abuse and dominance is included, because their precise definition is important for the better understanding of the term objective justification. This thesis submits that is very important to tackle with the formalistic approach and adopt the effect- based approach in the examination of Article 102 TFEU and of objective justifications. There is the need for a clear definition regarding the term objective justification, which will enhance the legal certainty. As far as the subdivision of the different types of objective justifications is concerned, this thesis accepts the following subdivision of objective justifications: companies with market power should be allowed to engage in (i) legitimate business behaviour (either as part of their commercial freedom or in case of objective necessity), (ii) efficient conduct with a positive welfare effect and (ii) conduct that promotes a relevant public interest. Finally, this thesis considers whether environmental protection factors must be approved as an objective justification under Article 102 TFEU and whether they play any role in European Competition Law in general, and whether they should play a role.

Competition Law

Restraint of trade--European Union countries.

Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (1957)

en

© 2016 Anna Michalou All Rights Reserved

Books  Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin, EU Competition Law - Text Cases and Materials, Oxford University Press, Fifth Edition, 2014.  D.Walbroeck, “The Assessment of Efficiencies under Article 102 TFEU and the Commission’s Guidance Paper” in Etro and Kokkoris (eds.), Competition Law and the Enforcement of Article 102 , Oxford University Press, 2010 .  K. Talus, EU Energy Law and Policy, Oxford University Press, 2013 .  Peter Ulmer ,‘Schranken zulässigen Wettbewerbs marktbeherrschender  R.Nazzini, The Foundations of European Union Competition Law, The Objectives and Principles of Article 102 TFEU, Oxford University Press, 2011 .  Richard Whish and David Bailey, “Competition Law”, Oxford University Press, Seventh Edition, 2012, pp. 179 - 181.  Robert H. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox, The Free Press, First Edition, 1993. Unternehmen‘, Gebundene Ausgabe, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden - Baden, 1977. Articles, Papers, Studies  Ahlbo rn and Padilla, ‘From Fairness to Welfare: Implications for the Assessment of Unilateral Conduct under EC Competition Law’ in European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC ,Hart Publishing, 2008, eds Ehlermann and Marquis.  Albo rs - Llorens, ‘The Role of Objective Justification and Efficiencies in the Application of Article 82 EC’, Common Market Law Review, Volume 44, Issue 6, 2007.  C. Townley, ‘Inter - Generational Impacts in Competition Analysis: remembering those not yet born’, E uropean Competition Law Review , Volume 11, 2011  C. Townley, ‘Is Anything more Important than Consumer Welfare (in Article 81 EC)? Reflections of a Community lawyer’, (2007 - 2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. - 40 -  D Wilsher, ‘Reducing Carbon E missions in the Electricity Sector: a Challenge for Competition Policy Too? An Analysis of Experience to Date and Some Suggestions for the future’, The Competition Law Review , Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 31 - 49, December 2009 .  Damien Gerrard, Merger Control Pol icy: How to give Meaningful Consideration to Efficiency Claims, (2003) 40 CMLRev 1367.  Duncan Sinclair, “Abuse of Dominance at a Crossroads – Potential Effect, Object and Appreciability under Article 82”, European Competition Law Review 491, Volume 25, 200 4.  E. Blomme, ‘State Action as a Defence Against 81 and 82 EC’, World Competition, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp. 243 – 261, Kluwer Law International, 2007 .  E. Østerud, Identifying Exclusionary Abuses by Dominant Undertakings under EU Competition Law: The Spectrum of Tests, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2010.  Ekaterina Rousseva, “The concept of ‘Objective Justification’ of an Abuse of a Dominant Position: Can it help to Modernise the Analysis under Article 82 EC?”, The Competition Law Review, Volume 2, Issue 2, March 2006.  Eleanor M. Fox, “What is the harm to Competition? Exclusionary Practices and Anti - Competitive Effect”, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.70, 2012.  H.W. Friederiszick and L. Gratzà, ‘Dominant and Efficient - On the Relevance of Efficiencies in Abuse of Dominance Cases’, in: OECD Policy Roundtables, The Role of Efficiency Claims in Antitrust Proceedings 2012, (DAF/COMP (2012)23). https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/1 3497 (accessed 21 November 2015).  J.Vickers, “Abuse of Market Power”, The Economic Journal, Volume 115, Issue 504, pages F244 – F261, June 2005, http://onlinelib rary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468 - 0297.2005.01004.x/abstract (accessed 21 December 2015).  Jose ́ Carlos Laguna de Paz, “Protecting the Environment without Distorting Competition”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2012 .  K. Gill ingham, R. G. Newell, K. Palmer, Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy, Discussion Paper, RFF DP 09 - 13, April 2009 .  K. Tosza, ‘Efficiencies in Art. 82 EU: An illusionary defence?’ (2009) Concurrences: Law & Economics 35 . - 41 -  Kallaugher and Sher ‘Rebates Revis ited: Anti - Competition Effects and Exclusionary Abuse under Article 82’ (2004) 25 ECLR 263.  Kingston, Suzanne Elizabeth Joy, ‘ The role of environmental protection in EC competition law and policy ’, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Law, Leiden University, 2009 ,  Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, “Article 82 EC: Where are we coming from and where are we going to?”, The Competition Law Review, Volume 2, Issue 2, March 2006, pp.9 - 11.  Luc Gyselen, “Rebates: Competition on the Merits or Exclusionary Practice?”, 8th Annual EU Competiti on Law and Policy Workshop at the European University Institute in Florence on 6 June 2003, available on the European University Website at http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Resear ch/Competition/2003%28papers%29.shtml.  Paul - John Loewenthal, 'The Defence of “Objective Justification” in the Application of Article 82 EC', World Competition, Volume 28, Issue 4, (2005), Kluwer Law International.  Philip Lowe, DG Competition’s Review of t he Policy on Abuse of Dominance, in: B.E. Hawk, (Ed.), International Antitrust and Policy: Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute 2003, Juris Publishing, New York, 2004.  R Betz, T Sanderson, T Ancev, ‘In or out: efficient inclusion of in stallations in an emissions trading scheme?’ (2010) 37 Journal of Regulatory Economics, Volume 37 .  R. Nazzini, ‘The Wood Began to Move: An Essay on Consumer Welfare, Evidence and Burden of Proof in Article 82 Cases’, European Law Review, Vol. 31, no. 4, 20 06.  R.A. Posner, ‘The Value of Wealth: A Comment on Dworkin and Kronman’, (1980) 9 J. Legal Stud.  R.M. Dworking, ‘Is Wealth A Value? ’, (1980) 9 J. Legal Stud.  T.Eilmansberger, ‘How to distinguish good from bad competition under Article 82EC: In search of clearer and more coherent standards for anti - competitive abuses’, Common Market Law Review, Volume 42, pp. 129 - 177,2005.  Venit, ‘Article 82: The Last Frontier – Fighting Fire with Fire’, (2005) 28 Fordham International Law Journal .  Vijver, Tjarda Desideriu s Oscar van der, “Objective justification and Prima Facie anti - competitive unilateral conduct: an exploration of EU Law and beyond”, PhD Thesis, Europa Institute, Faculty of Law, Leiden University, 2014, http://hdl.handle.net/1887/29593 (accessed 11 November 2015).  - 42 - Cases  BP v The Commission, Case 77/77 [1978] ECR 1513  Case 18/88 RTT v. GB - Inno - BM [1991] ECR I - 5941  Case 27/76, United Brands Company and United Brands Con tinental BV v. Commission [1978] ECR 207  Case 311/84 CBEM v. CLT and IPB (‘Telemarketing’) [1985] ECR 3261  Case 322/81, Nederlandsche Banden - Industrie Michelin NV v. Commission, [1983] ECR 3461  Case 395/87 Ministère Public v. Tournier [1989] ECR 2521  Case 62/86 Akzo Chemie BV v. Commission [1991] ECR I - 3359  Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed [1989] ECR 803  Case 77/77 BP v. Commission [1978] ECR 1513  Case 85/76 Hoffmann - La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461  Case C - 1/12 Ordem dos Técnicos Oficias de Contas v Autoridade d a Concorrência [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:81  Case C - 109/03 KPN v. OPTA [2004] ECR I - 11273  Case C - 209/10 Post Denmark v. Konkurrencerådet [2012] ECR I - 000  Case C ‐ 260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I - 2925  Case C - 280/08 P Deutsche Telekom v Commission [2010] ECR I - 9555  Case C - 322/81 Michelin v. Commission (‘Michelin I’) [1983] ECR 3461  Case C - 344/98 Masterfoods v. HB Ice Cream [2000] ECR I - 11369  Case C - 379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I - 2099  Case C - 385/07 P, Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland GmbH v. Commission [2009] ECR I - 6155  Case C ‐ 457/10 P, AstraZeneca v. Commission [2012] ECR I - 0000  Case C - 481/01, IMS Health v EC Commission, 11 Apri l 2002, [2001] ECR I - 5039; CFI,  Case C - 487/06 P, British Aggregates Association v Commission (British Aggregates Association II [2008] ECR II - 2789  Cas e C - 52/07 Kanal 5 and TV 4 v STIM [2008] ECR I - 9275  Case C - 52/09 TeliaSonera [2011] ECR I - 527 - 43 -  Case C - 53/03, Synetairismos Farmakopeion Aitolias & Akarnanias v. Glaxosmithkline AEVE, European Court Reports [2005] ECR I - 4609  Case C - 7/97 Bronner [1998] ECR I - 7791  Case C - 95/04 P, British Airways v. Commission [2007] ECR I - 2331  Case T - 201/04 Microsoft v. EC Commission [2007] ECR II - 3601  Case T - 219/99 British Airways plc v Commission [2003] ECR II - 5917, [2004] 4 CMLR 1008.  Case T - 201/04 Microsoft v. Commissio n [2007] ECR II - 3601  Case T - 203/01 Michelin v. Commission (‘Michelin II’) [2003] ECR II - 4071  Case T - 228/97 Irish Sugar v. Commission [1999] ECR II - 2969  Case T - 271/03 Deutsche Telekom v. Commission [2008] ECR II - 477  Case T - 289/01, Der Grüne Punkt - Duales Sys tem Deutschland GmbH v. Commission[2007] ECR II - 1691  Case T - 30/89 Hilti v Commission [1990] ECR II - 163  Case T - 51/89, Tetra Pak Rausing SA v. Commission, (1990) ECR II - 309.  Case T - 513/93 Consiglio nazionale degli spedizionieri doganali v. Commission ECR II - 1810, para 61  Case T ‐ 65/89 BPB Industries and British Gypsum v Commission [1993] ECR II - 389  Case T - 65/98(Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v Commission) [1998] ECR II - 2641.  Case T - 66/01 ICI v. Commission [2010] ECR II - 2631  Case T - 83/91 Tetra Pak v. Commission ('Tet ra Pak II') [1994] ECR II - 755  Cases T - 191/98, T - 212/98 to T - 214/98 Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission (‘TACA’) [2003] ECR II - 3275  Commission decision 94/119/EC, Port of Rødby, OJ [1994] L 55/52.  COMP/39,525, Telekomunikacjia Polska 22 June 201 1, on appeal Case T - 486/11, ruling 17 D ecember 2015, judgement pending  Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 and 218/78 Van Landewyck v. Commission [1980] ECR 3125  Joined Cases 240/82 to 242/82, 261/82, 262/82, 268/82 and 269/82 Stichting Sigarettenindustrie and O thers v Commission [1985] ECR 3831  Joined Cases 6 and 7/73 Commercial Solvents [1974] ECR 223 - 44 -  Joined Cases C - 241/91 P and C - 242/91 P, Radio Telefis Eireann & Independent Television Publication Limited v EC Commission (“Magill”), 6 April 1995, [1995]ECR I - 7 43  Joined Cases C - 359/95 P and C - 379/95 P Commission and France v. Ladbroke Racing [1997] ECR I - 6265  J oined Cases: T - 191/98, T - 212/98 to T - 214/98 Atlantic Container Line and Others v. Commission [2003] ECR II - 3275  Legislative Texts  Council Regulation (EC ) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules of competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, (2003) OJ L1/1  Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusio nary conduct by dominant undertakings OJ C 45, 24.2.2009  Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the Control of Concentrations between Undertakings (2004) OJ C31/

School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, LLM in Transnational and European Commercial Law, Mediation, Arbitration and Energy Law

Michalou Anna, "Objective Justification and Prima Facie Anti-Competitive Unilateral Conduct of Article 102 TFEU", School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, 2016.

Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................... IV DEDICATION. ............................................................................................................... I PREFACE ...................................................................................................................... II INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 102 TFEU: ABUSE, DOMINANT POSITION AND OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3 THE OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 102 TFEU ..................................................................... 3 THE DEFINITION OF THE TERMS: “DOMINANT POSITION” AND ABUSE ......................... 4 THE USE OF ‘OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION’ WITHIN ARTICLE 102 TFEU AND THE TWO-TIER APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 8 THE UTILITY OF STUDYING THE OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 102 TFEU ........................................................................................................................ 11 THE OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 102 TFEU ................ 14 BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF AN OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION ............................................ 14 THE TYPES OF THE OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATIONS .......................................................... 17 Legitimate commercial conduct/ business behaviour ...................................... 18 Efficiencies ....................................................................................................... 22 Public Interest .................................................................................................. 27 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND COMPETITION LAW ...................... 31 RELEVANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS TO THE NOTION OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 102TFEU ............................................ 31 ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMPETITION POLICY, DO THEY WORK IN THE SAME WAY? ... 33 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 39

Dr. Metaxas, Antonis

IHU

51