2011 Competition Law
The question invites a discussion on the law of EU competition law. It seeks to safeguard
legitimate competition between entities such as Surekids (S), Karlotta (K), Infanta (I) and Regal (R) in
a bid to, inter alia, ‘enhance consumer welfare’ [British Airways v Commission]. This is achieved by
Treaty Articles that particularly concern restrictive trade practices [Article 101 TFEU] and monopoly
situations [Article 102 TFEU].
This essay seeks to critically discuss the following issues in relation to possible breaches of
competition law in regards to (1) S refusal’s to supply to I, (2) possible threat by S to other
companies in Romania and Bulgaria to stop selling fabrics to I as well as (3) the identical pricing
between K and Regal Prices and the fact that (4) Regal’s decision to stop supplying customers in
Spain and S’s intention to do so in Germany.
It is established following Hofner and Elser, the entities stated can be regarded as an
undertaking. The four entities are evidently engaged in economic activity, i.e., manufacture and/or
sale of children’s fabric. There is no indication on the facts the manufacture and/or sale of children’s
fabric is done for personal accord or as contribution to social welfare which do not fall within the
‘sphere of economic activity’ [Wouters].
ARTICLE 102 TFEU.
From the facts, it is evident that issues (1) and (2) pertaining to S fall within the ambit of Art.
102. To preface, a violation of Article 102 of the TFEU (hereafter, “Art. 102”) requires that the
Undertaking is in a dominant position, has abused that position and said abuse is capable of affecting
trade between Member States.
Does S possess a dominant position in the first place? A position of dominance within the
market concerns with an undertaking’s position of ‘economic strength’ and its ability to act
independently in the market [United Brands; Continental Can v Commission].
The question invites a discussion on the law of EU competition law. It seeks to safeguard
legitimate competition between entities such as Surekids (S), Karlotta (K), Infanta (I) and Regal (R) in
a bid to, inter alia, ‘enhance consumer welfare’ [British Airways v Commission]. This is achieved by
Treaty Articles that particularly concern restrictive trade practices [Article 101 TFEU] and monopoly
situations [Article 102 TFEU].
This essay seeks to critically discuss the following issues in relation to possible breaches of
competition law in regards to (1) S refusal’s to supply to I, (2) possible threat by S to other
companies in Romania and Bulgaria to stop selling fabrics to I as well as (3) the identical pricing
between K and Regal Prices and the fact that (4) Regal’s decision to stop supplying customers in
Spain and S’s intention to do so in Germany.
It is established following Hofner and Elser, the entities stated can be regarded as an
undertaking. The four entities are evidently engaged in economic activity, i.e., manufacture and/or
sale of children’s fabric. There is no indication on the facts the manufacture and/or sale of children’s
fabric is done for personal accord or as contribution to social welfare which do not fall within the
‘sphere of economic activity’ [Wouters].
ARTICLE 102 TFEU.
From the facts, it is evident that issues (1) and (2) pertaining to S fall within the ambit of Art.
102. To preface, a violation of Article 102 of the TFEU (hereafter, “Art. 102”) requires that the
Undertaking is in a dominant position, has abused that position and said abuse is capable of affecting
trade between Member States.
Does S possess a dominant position in the first place? A position of dominance within the
market concerns with an undertaking’s position of ‘economic strength’ and its ability to act
independently in the market [United Brands; Continental Can v Commission].
