The Principles of Article 102(c) TFEU in Cases of Non-exclusionary Secondary Line Discrimination on Grounds Other than Nationality Case Comment to the Judgment of EU Court of Justice of 19 April 2018 Meo-Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia (C-525/16)

• Authors: Jan Szczodrowski

Abstracts

FR

Bien que les cas d’application de l’article 102, point c), du TFUE puissant difficilement être considérés comme rares, ils ont été appliqués jusqu’à present à deux ensembles de situations essentiellement différentes: la discrimination fondée sur la nationalité, d’une part, et les autres formes de discrimination, d’autre part. Si le nombre de cas de la première catégorie de demandes est relativement élevé et si les critères d’application de l’article 102, point c), du TFUE à de tells situations semblent simples, il existe moins de cas où l’article 102, point c), du TFUE a été appliqué à une discrimination secondaire non exclusive fondée sur des motifs autres que la nationalité, et les critères d’application sont sans doute moins clairs. La décision rendue dans l’affaire C-525/16 MEO représente une étape importante, mais non révolutionnaire. Elle peut être considérée, à certains égards, comme apportant une certaine nouveauté (par exemple, la delimitation des champs d’application respectifs de l’article 102, point b), et de l’article 102, point c), du TFUE), mais elle confirme plutôt les principes qui ont été établis antérieurement (i.e., la notion de désavantage concurrentiel). L’enseignement de la Cour sur les éléments dont les autorités de concurrence et les juridictions de l’UE peuvent disposer pour établir l’existence d’un désavantage concurrentiel, au sens de l’article 102, point c), du TFUE, peut sans doute être interprété de diverses manières. Pourtant, elle détermine dans une certaine mesure les instruments don’t les autorités et les tribunaux peuvent disposer et laisse une certaine place à des arguments raisonnables liés au bien-être.

EN

Although the instances of application of Article 102(c) TFEU can hardly be described as rare, to date it has been applied to essentially two sets of diverging situations, namely to discrimination on grounds of nationality on the one hand, and other forms of discrimination on the other. While there is a relatively high number of instances of the former category of applications, and the criteria of the application of Article 102(c) TFEU to such situations seem straightforward, fewer cases exist in which Article 102(c) TFEU was applied to non-exclusionary secondary line discrimination on grounds other than nationality, and the criteria of application are arguably less clear. The judgment in case C-525/16 MEO represents a significant, yet not a revolutionary step in its interpretation. While in some respects, it may be seen as bringing some novelty (for example, the delineation of the respective scopes of application of Article 102(b) and Article 102(c) TFEU), in others (that is, the notion of competitive disadvantage), it rather confirms the principles which have been previously established. Arguably, the Court’s teaching on the elements which the competition authorities and courts across the EU may have at their disposal to establish the existence of competitive disadvantage, within the meaning of Article 102(c) TFEU, is open to various interpretations. Yet it does to a certain extent shape the toolkit that these authorities and courts may have at their disposal and leaves some room for reasonable welfare related arguments.

Keywords

EN

competition law; antitrust; discrimination; competitive disadvantage; discrimination on the grounds of nationality

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 20
• Pages: 269-278

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Jan Szczodrowski

• European Commission

References

• Gerard D. (2005). Price Discrimination under Article 82(2)(c) EC: Clearing up the Ambiguities, Research Paper on the Modernisation of Article 82 EC, Global Competition Law Centre 7 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113354).
• Gonzalez Diaz F.E., Snelders R. (ed.) (2013). EU Competition Law, Vol. V. Abuse of Dominance Under Article 102 TFEU, Claeys & Casteels Publishing.
• O’Donoughue R. (2018). The Quiet Death of Secondary-Line Discrimination as an Abuse of Dominance: Case C-525/16 MEO, Journal of European Competition law and Practice, Vol. 9, No. 7.
• Ritter C. (2019). Price Discrimination as an Abuse of a Dominant Position under Article 102 TFEU: MEO – Case C-525/16 MEO Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia, v. Autoridade da Concorrencia, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 56, issue 1.
• Temple Lang J. (2003). In: International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law, Juris Publishing.
• Temple Lang J. (2008). The Requirements for a Commission Notice on the Concept of Abuse under Article 82, CEPS Special Report, Available at: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/1765.pdf.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2019.12.20.12

Biblioteka Nauki

2159163