European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

According to Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission may by decision require the undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned to bring to an end the infringement established. The EU authority is not required to take such a decision, as Article 7 allows it the possibility of not adopting a decision to compel the undertakings concerned to put an end to the infringement .
The fin …

Conditions

According to Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission may by decision require the undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned to bring to an end the infringement established. The EU authority is not required to take such a decision, as Article 7 allows it the possibility of not adopting a decision to compel the undertakings concerned to put an end to the infringement .

The finding of an infringement must be stated in the decision ordering the infringement to be brought to an end. After first finding that it could be set out either in the preamble to or the operative part of the decision, as its effects on the legal situation of the undertakings concerned do not depend on its position in the decision , the EU courts now consider that the infringement should at least appear in the operative part to be capable of adversely affecting an undertaking and giving rise to a right to bring an action for annulment . The Commission may find the existence of an infringement even though the infringement has ceased, where it has a legitimate interest in doing so . Such is the case in particular where the decision finding an infringement can clarify the legal situation and prevent recidivism . However, as the Court of Justice has clarified, the Commission is required to justify a legitimate interest in finding an infringement where that infringement has ceased only if it does not impose a fine .

The decision to bring the infringement to an end must be “in relation to the infringement which has been established” . The Commission cannot therefore order a sports federation to modify an arbitration  rule which is not a constituent element of the infringement observed  and does not reinforce its effects .The EU authority may impose structural or behavioral remedies upon the parties but those remedies must be proportionate to the infringement committed and necessary to effectively bring it to an end . The Commission cannot be accused of any violation of the principle of proportionality when it obliges the undertaking to restore the competitive situation, without imposing on it a choice between the various possible options and their implementation methods . The charges imposed must not exceed what is appropriate and necessary to re-establish compliance with law  and bring the infringement to an end . An injunction to abstain in the future, from implementing of any “similar” measure is not disproportionate due to its allegedly non-defined character insofar as the Commission is clearly referring to the conduct stated in its decision .

Thus, it may be necessary, to bring an abuse of dominant position to an end, to have the undertaking concerned undertake to forego the payment of a fee for the use of its logo, where the less restrictive alternative of selective marking of packaging depending on the system used is a solution more expensive and difficult to implement ; but it is not possible to impose upon it the designation, at its own costs, of a monitoring trustee having continuous and unlimited access to its information, documents, premises and employees . Finally, non-selected proposals for commitments may not serve as a point of reference for assessing the proportionality of an injunctive measure .

Case 125/78 GEMA v Commission [1979] ECR 3173, LawLex200500003903JBJ.

Case 56/64 Établissements Consten (SARL) [1991] LawLex200200004154JBJ.

Case T-76/89 ITP v Commission [1991] ECR II-575, LawLex200400002914JBJ.

Case T-7/93 Langnese-Iglo v Commission [1995] ECR II-1533, LawLex200400003648JBJ; Case T-9/93 Schöller v Commission [1995] ECR II-1611, LawLex200400003649JBJ; Case T-354/94 Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [1998] ECR II-2111, LawLex200400003609JBJ, Case T-310/94 Gruber + Weber v Commission [1998] ECR II-1043, LawLex200500005230JBJ; Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601, LawLex200700001486JBJ; Case T-491/07 RENV Groupement des cartes bancaires, Judgment of 30 June 2016, not available in English, holding that the injunction limited to putting an end to the infringement by ordering the withdrawal of the measures declared anticompetitive cannot be regarded as contrary to the principle of proportionality.

Case T-491/07 RENV Groupement des cartes bancaires, Judgment of 30 June 2016, not available in English.

Case T-151/01 Duales System Deutschland v Commission [2007] ECR II-1607, LawLex200700001481JBJ, upheld in Case C-385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland GmbH [2009] ECR p. I-6155 LawLex200900003115JBJ.

Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601, LawLex200700001486JBJ.

Case T-474/04 Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse GmbH [2007] LawLex200700001571JBJ.

Case T-22/02 Sumitomo Chemical v Commission [2005] ECR II-4065, LawLex200500010186JBJ.

See Case 7/82 GVL v Commission [1983] ECR 483, LawLex200400002960JBJ.

Case C-123/16 P Orange Polska SA, Judgment of 25 July 2018, LawLex201900000387JBJ.

Case 6/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents v Commission [1974] ECR 223, LawLex200400002884JBJ; Case T-69/89 RTE v Commission [1991] ECR II-485, LawLex200400002913JBJ.

Case T-93/18 International Skating Union, Judgment of 16 December 2020, LawLex202000003718JBJ.

Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601, LawLex200700001486JBJ, which underlines that the Commission does not have unlimited discretion when formulating remedies for the purpose of putting an end to an infringement and must comply with the principle of proportionality.

Case T-814/17 Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB, Judgment of 18 November 2020, LawLex202000003113JBJ.

The Commission may order undertakings to take or refrain from taking certain action with a view to bringing the infringement to an end . Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 indicates that structural remedies can only be imposed where there is no equally effective behavioral remedy .

An order to take or refrain from taking some action must not breach the principle of freedom of contract . Although the Commission may order a renegotiation or termination of contracts where the elimination of the restrictive effects of the practice depends on it , it is not empowered to order the conclusion of an agreement  or to prohibit concluding future agreements . The Commission may also order an undertaking to provide copyright information , to supply goods , or to disclose prices .

Lastly, the Commission may order the parties to bring an end to certain acts or practices, or to refrain from adopting similar conduct in the future . It can prevent an undertaking in a dominant position from granting any discount that is not justified by any objective consideration . An injunction, by its preventive nature, does not depend on the situation of the undertakings concerned at the time when the decision was adopted. An injunction enjoining an undertaking to refrain from doing something may therefore be addressed to an undertaking which is no longer active in the market concerned .

Case T-69/89 RTE v Commission [1991] ECR II-485, LawLex200400002913JBJ.

Cf. concentration rules where the EU authorities favors structural measures to behavioral measures.

Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak v Commission [1994] ECR II-755, LawLex200400002887JBJ.

Case T-456/05 Gütermann and Zwicky v Commission, LawLex201000000546JBJ.

Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v Commission [2000] ECR II-3929, LawLex200400002977JBJ.

Commission Decision No 93/50/EEC of 23 December 1992, Astra, LawLex200500004738JBJ; Case T-411/08 R Artisjus v Commission [2008], LawLex200900000081JBJ. Also see Case T-425/08 R Koda, Judgment of 5 December 2008, not available in English: although the Commission may requires of the undertaking party to a cartel a revision of the unlawful agreements, it cannot issue specific injunctions which impose how those agreements must be described.

Case T-24/90 Automec v Commission [1992] ECR II-2223, LawLex200500004904JBJ; Case T-411/08 R Artisjus v Commission [2008], LawLex200900000081JBJ.

Case T-9/93 Schöller v Commission [1995] ECR II-1611, LawLex200400003649JBJ.

Case T-69/89 RTE v Commission [1991] ECR II-485, LawLex200400002913JBJ; Case C-241/91 P RTE and ITP v Commission [1995] ECR I-743, LawLex200400002891JBJ.

Commission Decision No 72/457/EEC of 14 December 1972, ZOJA/CSC - ICI (not available in English); No 76/353/EEC of 17 December 1975, Chiquita, LawLex200400002387JBJ.

Commission Decision No 76/353/EEC of 17 December 1975, Chiquita, LawLex200400002387JBJ.

Case T-310/94 Gruber + Weber v Commission [1998] ECR II-1043, LawLex200500005230JBJ.

European Competition Law

262. Conditions

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

262. Conditions

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise