Abuse Of Dominant Position

Summary

Outright refusal to supply occurs when a dominant company denies a product/service to a rival, potentially violating Article 102 TFEU. The Bronner case established that such refusal is abusive if the product/service is indispensable, refusal eliminates competition, and theres no objective justification. Similar principles apply when a vertically integrated company makes it extremely difficult for rivals to operate downstream, equating to refusal to supply. Key criteria include indispensability, impact on competition, and lack of objective justification.

Full Conversation

When considering whether an abuse of a dominant position under Article * TFEU has been committed, are situations where a vertically integrated dominant company makes it practically extremely difficult for its rival to operate downstream (for example, by increasing prices and failing to deliver products on time or in the quantities ordered) to be equated with situations of outright refusal to supply? Specifically, when determining whether such conduct constitutes an abuse of a dominant position, must the criteria set out in Case C-*/*, Oscar Bronner EU:C:*:*, and especially the criterion of indispensability of the product or service in question, be applied?

Hi ****!
In cases of abuse of a dominant position under Article * TFEU, situations where a vertically integrated dominant company makes it extremely difficult for its rivals to operate downstream can indeed be scrutinized. The criteria set out in Case C-*/*, Oscar Bronner, especially the criterion of indispensability, typically apply to refusal to supply cases. However, similar principles can be considered in assessing whether such conduct constitutes an abuse:
- Indispensability: Whether the product/service is essential for the rival to compete.
- Objective Justification: Whether the dominant company's behavior can be objectively justified.
- Effect on Competition: The impact of the conduct on competition in the downstream market.
Is there a specific industry or market you are referring to?

Assume the case was in the market for dental implants in a EU country

In the context of the dental implants market in an EU country, the principles you mentioned can certainly be relevant. Here's a concise breakdown:
- Indispensability: If the dental implants are essential for rivals to compete.
- Objective Justification: If the dominant company can justify its conduct.
- Effect on Competition: How the conduct affects competition downstream.
Do you need information on any specific legal precedents or actions taken in the dental implants market?

can you tell me what is outright refusal to supply, and also explain the Bronner case? also explain why situations where a vertically integrated dominant company makes it practically extremely difficult for its rival to operate downstream can be equated with outright refusal to supply?

Sure, ****! Here's a quick breakdown:

Outright Refusal to Supply
- A dominant company refuses to provide a product or service to a rival.
- This can be seen as an abuse of a dominant position under Article * TFEU.

Bronner Case (Case C-*/*, Oscar Bronner)
- The Court ruled that refusal to supply is abusive if:
- The product/service is indispensable.
- Refusal eliminates competition.
- There is no objective justification.

Equating Difficult Practices with Refusal to Supply
- If a vertically integrated company makes it extremely difficult (e.g., high prices, delayed deliveries), it can be similar to outright refusal.
- The key criteria include:
- Indispensability of the product/service.
- Impact on competition.
- Lack of objective justification.
Is there a specific aspect of the Bronner case or Article * TFEU you are curious about?

Abuse Of Dominant Position

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats