Competition Law

Question 1

Commission v France

Answer 1

Angry farmers case - France breached obligations by not taking action against the behaviour of French farmers towards imports.

Question 2

Consten & Grundig

Answer 2

German manufacturer made agreement with French company for sole distributorship of its products, imposed minimum purchase and they couldn’t buy any other products. Held that agreements which might restore national divisions in trade between member states would frustrate fundamental community aims. Affects horizontal and vertical arrangements.

Question 3

Höfner

Answer 3

Undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of legal status.

Question 4

United Brands

Answer 4

Relevant market - were bananas in seperate market? Yes, they were sufficiently distinct, couldn’t be substituted.

Question 5

Sea Containers v Sealink

Answer 5

Geographical area - Holyhead.

Question 6

Hoffmann La Roche

Answer 6

HLR was found to have a dominant position, position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintainted on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors and customers and ultimately of consumers. Very large market shares may be evidence of dominant position.

Question 7

British Leyland

Answer 7

Exploitive abuse through excessive pricing - exploitive fees were charged for left hand cars.

Question 8

Chemie

Answer 8

Predatory pricing - two companies produced same chemical, one started selling below cost to steal customers, was abusive.

Question 9

Intel

Answer 9

Intel had dominant position, granted fidelity rebates to companies buying exclusively from Intel, General Court listed three types of rebate (1) quantity, (2) fidelity, and (3) financial incentive with fidelity building effect. Fidelity rebates are by their very nature capable of restricting competition.

Question 10

Hugin v Commission

Answer 10

H stopped supplying spares of their machines to other companies so they’d have exclusive ability to repair, Sweden was outside union so there was no effect on trade between Member States.

Question 11

Rhône Poulenc

Answer 11

Sufficient that the undertakings should have expressed their joint intention to conduct themselves on the market in a specific way

Question 12

ICI v Commission

Answer 12

Argument that dyestuffs market was oligopoly and behaviour wasn’t concerted practice but an inevitable part of practice, held there was no oligopoly so it was concerted practice.

Question 13

Expedia Case

Answer 13

Distinction between infringements by object and infringements by effect arises from the fact that certain forms of collusion between undertakings can be regarded, by their very nature, as being injurious to the proper function of normal competition.

Question 14

Völk and Vervaecke

Answer 14

Agreement falls outside of Article 101 where there is an insignificant effect on the market, in this case put at 1% market share.

Question 15

Courage v Crehan

Answer 15

Crehan leased pubs from Courage, could only supply Courage beer, ended up insolvent as a result. Held that damages should be available to those who have suffered even if they are a party to a contract violating the competition rules.

Question 16

British Airways

Answer 16

If rebates are quantitative and apply in the same way to all consumers, not abusive. If rebates are conditional on exclusive purchasing then the system is in principle abusive.