ZRP
Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii

The Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies by way of preliminary ruling the assessment of

26 Aprilie 2018   |   Georgeta Dinu, Partner & Alexandru Șotropa, Associate - NNDKP

In conclusion, the CJEU preliminary ruling in MEO case clarified the interpretation of Article 102, shedding more light on how dominant companies should design their pricing policy and on how competition authorities and courts should tackle abuse of dominance cases in the form of discrimination.

Georgeta Dinu, Partner & Alexandru Sotropa, Associate - NNDKP

 
 
•    Prior to CJEU's recent clarification, legal doctrine criticized the approach of competition authorities and courts, which often tended to limit themselves to assuming the existence of a competitive disadvantage (which is a requirement for finding abusive discrimination) from the mere existence of dissimilar conditions applied to equivalent transactions, or performed only a scarce analysis.
•    The CJEU preliminary ruling of 19 April 2018 in C-525/16 (MEO) clarifies that discriminatory pricing is not sufficient for finding an abuse, the authority being required to show that the conduct tends to distort competition, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case in order to assess the "competitive disadvantage".

•    Following the lines drawn by the Advocate General Wahl in its Opinion, the Court states that "the mere presence of an immediate disadvantage affecting operators who were charged more, compared with the tariffs applied to their competitors for an equivalent service, does not, however, mean that competition is distorted or is capable of being distorted", providing useful guidance as to the frequent question on how likely charging different prices would in itself be likely to amount to an abuse of dominant position.


The Facts of the Case in the Main Proceedings

The request for preliminary ruling was made in the course of proceedings between MEO, an entity which provides paid television signal transmission service and television content, and the competition authority in Portugal concerning the latter’s decision to take no further action on MEO’s complaint against GDA, a non-profit-making collecting cooperative which manages the rights of artists and performers, concerning an alleged abuse of a dominant position.

The alleged breach consisted in principle in a discrimination in the amount of the royalty which GDA charged MEO. During the investigation, the competition authority found that, between 2009 and 2013, GDA applied different tariffs to MEO as compared to its competitor, NOS. Relying on the costs, income and profitability structures of the retail offerings of the television signal transmission service and television content, the authority considered that that tariff differentiation had no restrictive effect on MEO’s competitive position.

The main view of the authority was that in order to establish an infringement of paragraph (c) of Article 102 TFEU, any price discrimination must actually be capable of distorting competition on the market by putting one or more competing undertakings at a competitive disadvantage compared to the others. Such a position was challenged in court by MEO, which argued that the competition authority should have examined whether the conduct at issue was capable of distorting competition rather than examining whether there had been any significant and quantifiable distortion of competition.

The Request for a Preliminary Ruling

In this context, the Court was called to assess:
•    whether the concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’ requires an analysis of the specific effects of differentiated prices being applied by an undertaking in a dominant position on the competitive situation of the undertaking affected and
•    whether the seriousness of those effects should be taken into account (so-called de minimis threshold).

The Court's Preliminary Ruling

The Court's preliminary ruling restates some of its already existing case law and also clarifies the path in further understanding Article 102:
•    discriminatory pricing is not sufficient for finding an abuse, the authority being required to show that the conduct tends to distort competition;
•    "the mere presence of an immediate disadvantage affecting operators who were charged more, compared with the tariffs applied to their competitors for an equivalent service, does not, however, mean that competition is distorted or is capable of being distorted" (as Advocate General Wahl also pointed out in its Opinion);
•    in order to show that the conduct tends to distort competition, it is necessary to examine "all the relevant circumstances" in order to determine whether price discrimination produces or is capable of producing a competitive disadvantage (as Advocate General Wahl also pointed out in its Opinion);
•    thus, one should assess the undertaking’s dominant position, the negotiating power as regards the tariffs, the conditions and arrangements for charging those tariffs, their duration and their amount, and the possible existence of a strategy aiming to exclude from the downstream market one of its trade partners which is at least as efficient as its competitors (criteria also put forth in Intel case);
•    as to fixing an appreciability (de minimis) threshold for the purposes of determining whether there is an abuse of a dominant position, the Court stated this "is not justified" (restating previous case-law - Post Danmark).

Additional Guidance from the Court Given the Specific Facts in the Main Proceedings

•    where the effect of a tariff differentiation on the costs borne by the operator, or on the profitability and profits of that operator, is not significant, it may, in some circumstances, be deduced that that tariff differentiation is not capable of having any effect on the competitive position of that operator;
•    in a situation where the application of differentiated tariffs concerns only the downstream market, the undertaking in a dominant position, in principle, has no interest in excluding one of its trade partners from the downstream market.

In conclusion, the CJEU preliminary ruling in MEO case clarified the interpretation of Article 102, shedding more light on how dominant companies should design their pricing policy and on how competition authorities and courts should tackle abuse of dominance cases in the form of discrimination.

 
 

PNSA

 
 

ARTICOLE PE ACEEASI TEMA

ARTICOLE DE ACELASI AUTOR


     

    Ascunde Reclama
     
     

    POSTEAZA UN COMENTARIU


    Nume *
    Email (nu va fi publicat) *
    Comentariu *
    Cod de securitate*







    * campuri obligatorii


    Articol 24 / 2008
     

    Ascunde Reclama
     
     
     
    BREAKING NEWS
    ESENTIAL
    LegiTeam: VASS Lawyers recruteaza avocat stagiar
    LegiTeam: Zamfirescu Racoţi & Partners recrutează avocat definitiv pentru departamentul Litigii
    RTPR Allen & Overy, alături de Mitiska REIM la o nouă achiziție în România. ‘Expertiza semnificativă a echipei de avocați în tranzacții de M&A și real estate ne-a oferit siguranța fiecărui pas’, spun cumpărătorii
    Florian Nițu, Managing Partner PNSA: Pe piață a apărut nouă categorie de ‘antemergători’, cvasi-instituționali, cei care pregătesc terenul pentru marii investitori, fiecare din domeniile sănătate-farma, telecom-IT, energie sau imobiliare putând genera volume de tranzacții de peste 1 miliard de euro. Firmele de avocați lucrează uneori în condiții de dumping absolut de nejustificat și de neînțeles
    Echipa de litigii MUȘAT & ASOCIAȚII obţine menținerea clasării ca monument istoric a Casei Memoriale „Vasile Alecsandri” din Bacău
    Hațegan Attorneys obține o hotărâre definitivă referitoare la impozitarea parcurilor fotovoltaice. Componentele cu valoare ridicată nu sunt considerate construcții
    Immofinanz vinde către Speedwell două terenuri în nordul Bucureştiului. Ce avocați de la PNSA și TZA au coordonat echipele
    AkzoNobel a bătut palma cu Oresa Ventures pentru achiziția Fabryo Corporation. Avocații Popovici Nițu Stoica & Asociații au fost alături de fond, Schoenherr a asistat cumpăratorul
    Mușat & Asociații: Numărul de mandate în domeniul protecției datelor cu caracter personal s-a dublat față de anul precedent
    Penaliștii de la Mareș|Danilescu|Mareș în asociere cu Dan Lupașcu au obținut sesizarea CCR în ”Dosarul Gala Bute”, în care îl apără pe Rudel Obreja. Argumentele cu care avocații au obținut decizia favorabilă la ÎCCJ
    Cum lucrează performanta echipă de 46 de avocați ai Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații specializați în practica de Dispute Resolution. Mandate cu greutate printre cele 4.200 de litigii ”lucrate” anul trecut, arbitraje internaționale cu pretenții de 4,9 mld. $ și servicii integrate pe zona de penal-comercial
    Promovări la Suciu Popa. Iulian Cioienaru devine partener, alți doi avocați urcă în poziția de Senior Associate
     
    Citeste pe SeeNews Digital Network
    • BizBanker

    • BizLeader

        in curand...
    • SeeNews

      in curand...