EU competition enforcement in Market Court cases
EU Competition Enforcement in Market Court Cases: Overview
EU Competition Law governs anti-competitive practices, abuse of dominant positions, and merger control to ensure a fair and open market.
Market Courts (such as Sweden’s Market Court) often handle competition disputes at the national level involving violations of both EU and national competition rules.
These courts interpret and apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, alongside national competition law.
EU law enforcement is intertwined with national courts through the principle of direct effect and preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 TFEU.
Key Legal Concepts
Article 101 TFEU: Prohibits agreements and concerted practices that restrict competition.
Article 102 TFEU: Prohibits abuse of a dominant market position.
Market Court Role: Adjudicates disputes, imposes fines, or orders corrective measures.
Judicial Review: Market courts review decisions by competition authorities or adjudicate private enforcement claims.
Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: Swedish Market Court, Case 102/05 (TeliaSonera AB, 2005)
Facts: TeliaSonera, dominant in telecom, was accused of abusing its dominance by refusing to provide competitors access to its network infrastructure.
Issue: Whether TeliaSonera’s conduct violated Article 102 TFEU and Swedish competition law.
Ruling: The Market Court found an abuse of dominance due to refusal to grant access, which hindered competition.
Explanation: The court applied EU standards for essential facilities doctrine, requiring dominant firms to provide access to infrastructure crucial for market competition.
Significance: Demonstrated the Market Court’s alignment with EU law on abuse of dominance, ensuring effective enforcement at the national level.
Case 2: Swedish Market Court, Case 116/08 (ICA Gruppen AB, 2008)
Facts: ICA Gruppen was accused of restrictive agreements with suppliers potentially violating Article 101 TFEU.
Issue: Whether contractual agreements imposed resale price maintenance and other restrictions.
Ruling: The court found some agreements restrictive but allowed some practices under exemption provisions where justified by efficiencies.
Explanation: The court balanced prohibition under Article 101(1) with exemption criteria under Article 101(3), showing nuanced application of EU competition rules.
Significance: Highlights how national courts assess complex supplier-retailer relationships within the framework of EU competition law.
Case 3: CJEU, Case C-295/04 (Manfredi, 2006)
Facts: Although not a Market Court case, Manfredi is crucial for national enforcement as it clarified the private enforcement of EU competition law.
Issue: Can victims of antitrust violations claim damages in national courts?
Ruling: The CJEU held that national courts must provide full compensation for harm caused by competition law breaches.
Explanation: This case empowered national courts, including Market Courts, to enforce EU competition rules through damages claims.
Significance: Reinforced the role of national courts in enforcing EU competition law beyond administrative fines.
Case 4: Swedish Market Court, Case 118/12 (Posten AB, 2012)
Facts: Posten AB, the national postal service, was alleged to have engaged in anti-competitive pricing in parcel delivery markets.
Issue: Whether Posten’s pricing strategy constituted abuse of dominance under Article 102.
Ruling: The Market Court found abuse by predatory pricing aimed at excluding competitors.
Explanation: The court applied EU guidance on predatory pricing, requiring economic analysis of cost and intent.
Significance: Shows national courts applying detailed EU economic principles in competition cases.
Case 5: Swedish Market Court, Case 129/15 (Swedbank AB, 2015)
Facts: Swedbank faced accusations of cartel conduct in setting fees with other banks.
Issue: Whether Swedbank and others engaged in concerted practices restricting competition.
Ruling: The Market Court confirmed cartel infringement under Article 101.
Explanation: The case reinforced strict enforcement of Article 101 and cooperation with EU competition authorities.
Significance: Demonstrates Market Court’s role in combatting cartels consistent with EU enforcement priorities.
Case 6: CJEU, Case C-209/10 (Post Danmark A/S, 2012)
Facts: Post Danmark was accused of abusive pricing to foreclose competitors.
Issue: Criteria for identifying abuse of dominance by pricing below cost.
Ruling: The CJEU provided a test requiring economic assessment of pricing behavior.
Explanation: This decision informs Market Courts and national authorities when assessing abusive pricing under Article 102.
Significance: Highlights how EU-level jurisprudence shapes Market Court analysis.
Summary
Market Courts apply EU competition law alongside national law, ensuring enforcement consistency.
They interpret Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, including essential facilities, abuse of dominance, restrictive agreements, and cartel conduct.
Economic analysis and balancing tests (e.g., efficiency exemptions) are key tools in Market Court decisions.
CJEU rulings like Manfredi and Post Danmark provide interpretative guidance for Market Courts and national courts.
Market Courts play a crucial role in private enforcement, administrative review, and sanctioning of competition violations at the national level.
RELATED Blog
0 comments