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

The geographic market assessed in respect of the hindrance to competition  is defined as, “the area in which the undertakings concerned are involved in the supply and demand of products or services, in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighboring areas because, in particular, conditions of competition are appreciably different in those areas”. The definition of the geographic market must take account “of the nature and characteristics of the products or services concerned, of the existence of entry barriers or of consumer preferences, of appreciable differences of the undertakings' market shares between the area concerned and neighboring areas or of substantial price differences” (Regulation No 139/2004, Article 9).

The geographic delineation of the market is carried out both positively and negatively. From the positive perspective, the market is defined by its limits obtained when identifying entry barriers. Most often, the EU authorities base their assessment on physical or economic criteria such as the nature of the product , transport costs , the access time to the relevant trading area , or the existence of administrative regulations . Sometimes, they may also supplement this analysis by psycho-sociological considerations such as language and cultural preferences  or local customs and consumer habits .

Homogeneity exists from the supply perspective where, in a given area, product characteristics , administrative regulations , offerors  and the level of maturity of the market  are identical or the volume of trade and elasticity of supply are significant. As for the demand, the competition authorities take account, in particular, of consumers' behavior, the organization of the system of distribution , the structure  or location  of the demand, supply policies and the volume of imports . The absence of any price difference between products within a given geographic area is regarded as an essential indication of its homogeneity .

The concept of significant impediment to effective competition does not  mean that all parts of the catchment area must be equally affected by that impediment, see Case T-380/17 HeidelbergCement AG, Schwenk Zement KG and Duna-Dráva Cement Kft, Judgment of 5 October 2020, LawLex202000002237JBJ.

See in particular Commission Decision M.085 of 13 June 1991, Elf/Occidental, LawLex200400003193JBJ; M.012 of 31 July 1991, Varta/Bosch, LawLex200400002473JBJ, different product ranges; M.1030 of 16 December 1997, Lafarge/Redland (not available in English): heavy goods that are difficult to store; Commission Decision M.1085 of 6 February 1998, Promodes/Catteau (not available in English): significant differences from one Member State to another in the composition and packaging of products; M.1016 of 20 May 1998, Price Waterhouse/Coopers & Lybrand, LawLex200500004164JBJ; M.1225 of 25 November 1998, Enso/Stora, LawLex200500004399JBJ: different grades used for newsprint; M.1813 of 12 July 2000, Industri Kapital (Nordkem/Dyno), LawLex200500004488JBJ; M.2097 of 31 January 2001, SCA/Metsä Tissue, LawLex200400002651JBJ, “brand” recognition or reputation; M.2389 of 20 December 2001, Shell/DEA, LawLex200400002679JBJ.

Commission Decision M.070 of 21 March 1991, Otto/Grattan, LawLex200400003221JBJ: The difference between Member States regarding the state of development of a mature, even declining market, or on the contrary a nascent business with prospects for growth, constitutes an indication of the national dimension of the market for retail sale of non-food products through catalogue mail order.

Commission Decision M.043 of 29 May 1991, Magneti Marelli/CEAC (not available in English); M.098 of 18 June 1991, ELF/BC/CEPSA (not available in English); M.012 of 31 July 1991, Varta/Bosch, LawLex200400002473JBJ; M.254 of 5 November 1992, Fortis/La Caixa (not available in English); M.315 of 31 January 1994, Mannesmann/Vallourec/Ilva, LawLex200500004378JBJ; M.442 of 29 July 1994, Elf Atochem/Rütgers (not available in English); M.564 of 6 April 1995, Havas Voyages/American Express (not available in English); M.582 of 20 September 1995, Orkla/Volvo, LawLex200400002523JBJ; M.623 of 16 January 1996, Kimberly- Clark/Scott, LawLex200500004382JBJ; M.784 of 20 November 1996, Kesko/Tuko, LawLex200500004387JBJ; M.890 of 26 June 1997, Blokker/Toys “R” Us, LawLex200400002569JBJ; M.950 of 4 February 1998, Hoffmann La Roche/Boehringer Mannheim, LawLex200500004404JBJ; M.1329 of 4 February 1999, Cockerill-Sambre/Usinor (not available in English); M.1439 of 13 October 1999, Telia/Telenor, LawLex200400002631JBJ; M.1675 of 13 December 1999, Ducros/Hero France (not available in English); M.1684 of 25 January 2000, Carrefour/Promodes (not avaiblable in English); M.1672 of 14 March 2000, Volvo/Scania, LawLex200500005292JBJ; M.1806 of 26 July 2000, AstraZeneca/Novartis, LawLex200500004487JBJ; M.2621 of 8 January 2002, Seb/Moulinex, LawLex200500005378JBJ; M.2547 of 17 April 2002, Bayer/Aventis Crop Science, LawLex200500004407JBJ; M.2706 of 24 July 2002, Carnival Corporation/P&O Princess, LawLex200500005339JBJ; M.2822 of 17 December 2002, EnBW/ENI/GVS, LawLex200700000251JBJ; M.3149 of 30 July 2003, Procter & Gamble/Wella, LawLex200500004204JBJ; M.3083 of 2 September 2003, GE/Instrumentarium, LawLex200400003302JBJ; M.3440 of 9 December 2004, EDP/ENI/GDP, LawLex200700000224JBJ; M.3178 of 3 May 2005, Bertelsmann/Springer, LawLex200600001254JBJ; M.4066 of 20 March 2006, CVC/SLEC, LawLex200600001822JBJ.

Due to the nature and characteristics of gray cement, the competitive  conditions change gradually with the geographic location of each  customer and therefore cement is considered to be a geographically  differentiated product: Case T-380/17 HeidelbergCement AG, Schwenk Zement KG and Duna-Dráva Cement Kft, Judgment of 5 October 2020, LawLex202000002237JBJ.

Commission Decision M.023 of 28 November 1990, ICI/Tioxide, LawLex200400003176JBJ; M.190 of 22 July 1992, Nestlé/Perrier, LawLex200500004234JBJ; M.484 of 21 December 1994, Krupp/Thyssen/Riva/Falck/Tadfin/AST, LawLex200300000925JBJ; M.523 of 19 January 1995, Akzo Nobel/Monsanto, LawLex200400002514JBJ; Case T-585/20  Polwax SA, Judgment of 14 June 2023, LawLex202400003312JBJ; as demand for slack wax in Poland is not met exclusively by domestic production, but also by imports, there is effective competition on the Polish market between domestic and foreign slack wax supplies, justifying the inclusion of the latter in the definition of the relevant market.

See in particular Commission Decision M.023 of 28 November 1990, ICI/Tioxide, LawLex200400003176JBJ: the absence of price differences between the various Member States constitutes one of the criteria of the European dimension of the market concerned; M.430 of 21 June 1994, Procter & Gamble/VP Schickedanz (II), LawLex200500004379JBJ; M.646 of 30 October 1995, Repola/Kymmene, LawLex200400003185JBJ; M.619 of 24 April 1996, Gencor/Lonrho, LawLex200500004381JBJ; M.885 of 2 July 1997, Merck/Rhône-Poulenc - Merial, LawLex200400002568JBJ; M.997 of 18 December 1997, Swedish Match/Kav, LawLex200400003210JBJ; M.1203 of 29 September 1998, Usinor/Finarvedi (not available in English); M.2033 of 24 January 2001, Metso/Svedala, LawLex200400002647JBJ; M.2314 of 11 July 2001, BASF/Eurodiol/Pantochim, LawLex200400002674JBJ; M.3060 of 31 January 2003, UCB/Solutia, LawLex200500004199JBJ; M.3161 of 18 July 2003, CVRD/CAEMI, LawLex200500004203JBJ; M.3625 of 13 July 2005, Blackstone/Acetex, LawLex200600001256JBJ.

Commission Decision M.190 of 22 July 1992, Nestlé/Perrier, LawLex200500004234JBJ: a national geographic market for spring water may be identified in particular because of the transport costs which differ depending on the type of packaging used in the various Member States and which have a high impact on price due to the low value/high volume of bottled spring water; M.198 of 10 August 1992, Pechiney/Viag (not available in English); M.401 of 2 March 1994, Ruetgerswerke AG / Huels Troisdorf AG (not available in English); M.623 of 16 January 1996, Kimberly- Clark/Scott, LawLex200500004382JBJ; M.2420 of 30 October 2001, Mitsui/CVRD/Caemi, LawLex200400002681JBJ; Case T-380/17 HeidelbergCement AG, Schwenk Zement KG and Duna-Dráva Cement Kft, Judgment of 5 October 2020, LawLex202000002237JBJ, due to the characteristics associated with the sale of gray cement,  namely the existence of transport costs and security of supply concerns,  there will always be geographic differentiation within the relevant  geographic markets, regardless of the way in which those markets are  defined.

Commission Decision M.1085 of 6 February 1998, Promodes/Catteau (not available in English): regardless of the form of retail trade, the fact that there may be a 10 or 30 minute drive depending, in particular, on the size of the outlet, the related commercial infrastructures, the communication roads and the quality of the servicing, constitutes a criterion of geographic delineation of the relevant trading areas; Case T-380/17 HeidelbergCement AG, Schwenk Zement KG and Duna-Dráva Cement Kft, Judgment of 5 October 2020, LawLex202000002237JBJ, according to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines products may be differentiated on the basis of where the product is located and on the basis of the product itself and therefore, for the geographical  differentiation of a product, both the distance to be traveled by the customer to obtain the product and the distance to be traveled by the product to reach the customer are relevant.

International standards: Commission Decision M.053 of 2 October 1991, Aerospatiale- Alenia/de Havilland, LawLex200400002474JBJ; M.727 of 7 August 1996, BP/Mobil, LawLex200400003133JBJ; European standards: Commission Decision M.023 of 28 November 1990, ICI/Tioxide, LawLex200400003176JBJ; M.1225 of 25 November 1998, Enso/Stora, LawLex200500004399JBJ; M.1882 of 19 July 2000, Pirelli/BICC, LawLex200500004490JBJ; National standards: Commission Decision M.042 of 12 April 1991, Alcatel/Telettra, LawLex200500005398JBJ; M.063 of 29 April 1994, ELF/ERTOIL (not available in English), for a State monopoly; M.072 of 10 June 1991, Sanofi/Sterling Drug, LawLex200400003196JBJ, for a marketing authorization; M.126 of 28 April 1992, Accor/Wagons-Lits, LawLex200500004232JBJ: conditions of awarding of contracts as regards social welfare aspects; M.564 of 6 April 1995, Havas Voyages/American Express (not available in English), professional regulation; M.991 of 30 October 1997, Promodes/Casino (not available in English), regulation on product composition and packaging; M.1681 of 26 November 1999, Akzo Nobel/Hoechst Roussel Vet, LawLex200400003066JBJ, administrative procedures with different national registrations and approval requirements. Liberalization of the sector concerned: M.997 of 18 December 1997, Swedish Match/Kav, LawLex200400003210JBJ; M.1075 of 20 January 1998, Nordic Capital/Mölnlycke Clinical/Kolmi, LawLex200500004163JBJ; M.1346 of 27 January 1999, EDF/London Electricity, LawLex200400003190JBJ; M.4180 of 14 November 2006, Gaz de France/Suez, LawLex200700001354JBJ. Absence of regulation limitations: M.986 of 11 February 1998, Agfa-Gevaert/DuPont, LawLex200500004405JBJ; M.1203 of 29 September 1998, Usinor/Finarvedi (not available in English); M.2978 of 7 January 2004, Lagardere/Natexis/VUP, LawLex200500005785JBJ; M.3099 of 6 October 2004, Areva/Urenco/ETC JV, LawLex200600001245JBJ.

Commission Decision M.993 of 27 May 1998, Bertelsmann/Kirch/Premiere, LawLex200500004166JBJ; M.2876 of 2 April 2003, Newscorp/Telepiù, LawLex200400003299JBJ; M.4842 of 31 October 2007, Danone/Numico, LawLex200800000303JBJ.

Commission Decision M.042 of 12 April 1991, Alcatel/Telettra, LawLex200500005398JBJ; M.126 of 28 April 1992, Accor/Wagons-Lits, LawLex200500004232JBJ; M.221 of 16 May 1992, ABB/Brel, LawLex200400003239JBJ; M.254 of 5 November 1992, Fortis/La Caixa (not available in English); M.334 of 19 July 1993, Costa Crociere/Chargeurs/Accor, LawLex200400003054JBJ; M.308 of 14 December 1993, Kali - Salz/MdK/Treuhand, LawLex200700001998JBJ; M.422 of 15 March 1994, Unilever France/Ortiz Miko (II) (not available in English); M.445 of 7 June 1994, BSN/Euralim (not available in English); M.430 of 21 June 1994, Procter & Gamble/VP Schickedanz (II), LawLex200500004379JBJ; M.477 of 14 February 1995, Mercedes- Benz/Kässbohrer, LawLex200400002512JBJ; M.468 of 17 February 1995, Siemens/Italtel, LawLex200400002511JBJ; M.564 of 6 April 1995, Havas Voyages/American Express (not available in English); M.573 of 11 April 1995, ING/Barings, LawLex200400003234JBJ; M.490 of 19 July 1995, Nordic Satellite Distribution, LawLex200400002513JBJ; M.623 of 16 January 1996, Kimberly- Clark/Scott, LawLex200500004382JBJ; M.794 of 22 January 1997, Coca-Cola/Amalgamated Beverages GB, LawLex200400002562JBJ; M.890 of 26 June 1997, Blokker/Toys “R” Us, LawLex200400002569JBJ; M.938 of 15 October 1997, Guinness/Grand Metropolitan, LawLex200500004402JBJ; M.997 of 18 December 1997, Swedish Match/Kav, LawLex200400003210JBJ; M.1121 of 25 May 1998, Alcatel/Thomson SA - Thomson CSF (not available in English); M.1672 of 14 March 2000, Volvo/Scania, LawLex200500005292JBJ; M.1895 of 3 May 2000, Ocean Group/Exel (NFC), LawLex200400003230JBJ; M.1940 of 6 December 2000, Framatome/Siemens/Cogéma/JV, LawLex200500004491JBJ; M.1915 of 13 March 2001, The Post Office/TPG/SPPL, LawLex200400002649JBJ; M.2283 of 10 October 2001, Schneider/Legrand, LawLex200400002671JBJ; M.2621 of 8 January 2002, Seb/Moulinex, LawLex200500005378JBJ; M.2822 of 17 December 2002, EnBW/ENI/GVS, LawLex200700000251JBJ; M.2861 of 30 April 2003, Siemens/Drägerwerk/JV, LawLex200700000250JBJ; M.3225 of 29 September 2003, Alcan/Pechiney (II), LawLex200500004206JBJ; M.3436 of 26 October 2004, Continental/Phoenix, LawLex200700002010JBJ; M.3653 of 13 July 2005, Siemens/VA Tech, LawLex200700002019JBJ; M.3687 of 25 August 2005, Johnson & Johnson/Guidant, LawLex200700000261JBJ.

Commission Decision M.362 of 15 September 1993, Nestle/Itagel, LawLex200400003213JBJ: price and margin variation from country to country in particular because of differences relating to product contents, makes it possible to identify a national market.

Commission Decision M.997 of 18 December 1997, Swedish Match/Kav, LawLex200400003210JBJ: homogeneous prices and market shares within the EEA, because of the disappearance of monopolies, make it possible, notably, to extend the geographic market to that area.

Commission Decision M.315 of 31 January 1994, Mannesmann/Vallourec/Ilva, LawLex200500004378JBJ: the geographic market for seamless stainless steel tube products extends to Western Europe because the structure of supply and demand is similar from State to State and, in particular, several stockists distribute in each country.

332. Criteria