Contents
Week 1A ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Höfner and Elser ................................................................................................................................. 3
Svenska Kraftnät ................................................................................................................................. 3
FFSA ................................................................................................................................................... 3
AOK .................................................................................................................................................... 4
AG2R .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Kattner Stahlbau.................................................................................................................................. 5
Diego cali ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Sjöberg ................................................................................................................................................ 6
SAT/Selex ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Week 1B ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Intel (opinion AG Whal) ..................................................................................................................... 9
Article Bishop ................................................................................................................................... 10
Article Wils – The judgment of the EU General Court in intel and the so-called ‘more economic
approach’ to abuse of dominance...................................................................................................... 12
Pierre Fabre ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Coty ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Week 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 21
Leegin (USA Supreme Court) .......................................................................................................... 21
Week 3A ............................................................................................................................................... 22
Bayer ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Anic ................................................................................................................................................... 22
GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) ................................................................................................................... 23
LTM/MBU ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Völk/Vervaecke ................................................................................................................................ 23
Gottrup-Klim (Gøttrup-Klim) ........................................................................................................... 24
Pronuptia ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Cartes Bancaires................................................................................................................................ 24
Wouters ............................................................................................................................................. 25
OTOC................................................................................................................................................ 25
Week 3B ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Ohio/AmEX (US Supreme Court) .................................................................................................... 25
Ping ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Hoffmann-LaRoche .......................................................................................................................... 26
Lundbeck .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Week 4A ............................................................................................................................................... 27
1
, Microsoft ........................................................................................................................................... 27
AKKA/LAA...................................................................................................................................... 27
Week 4B ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Woodpulp.......................................................................................................................................... 28
Week 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Ernst & Young .................................................................................................................................. 28
CK Telecoms .................................................................................................................................... 29
Bayer/Monsanto ................................................................................................................................ 33
Week 6A ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Orkem ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Heidelberg Cement ........................................................................................................................... 34
ICAP ................................................................................................................................................. 34
DHL .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Week 6B ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Donau Chemie .................................................................................................................................. 35
Apple v. Pepper (US Supreme Court) ............................................................................................... 35
Kone .................................................................................................................................................. 35
Week 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Topkin ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Preliminary assessment in Facebook proceeding Bundeskartellamt................................................. 36
Bundeskartel1amt – Background info on the Facebook proceeding................................................. 36
Press Release European Commission on Google Shopping ............................................................. 37
Press Release European Commission on Google Android ............................................................... 37
Fact sheet European Commission on Google shopping.................................................................... 39
Microsoft ........................................................................................................................................... 39
Streetmap .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Facebook/Whatsapp .......................................................................................................................... 39
2
,Week 1A
Höfner and Elser
The question is of the granting of a monopoly to a public employment agency is in contradiction to art.
106 VWEU. Only an undertaking is subject to the competition rules. The definition of an undertaking
is:
Every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the
way in which it is financed. (Höfner & Elser)
Therefore, also a public agency can be an undertaking.
A public agency is subject to the prohibition of art. 106 VWEU, so long as the application of that
provision does not obstruct the performance of the particular task assigned to it.
Svenska Kraftnät
Sees on art. 102 VWEU. Also, the definition of an undertaking further elaborated. Svenska Kraftnät
is an undertaking, because it is engaged in economic activities as it provides services on the market.
Svenska Kraftnät is the operator of the Swedish electricity grid there a pure monopolist they're the only
ones who can operate and construct high voltage power lines in all of Sweden, so they have a 100%
market share. There is no market, well there is a market but it's not a competitive market. There is at
least the potential possibility for someone else to start operating that electricity grid. Even if the state
would not open up the market, the competition rules still apply if there is an economic activity.
In the preliminary assessment, the Commission raised concerns that SvK may have abused its dominant
position on the Swedish electricity transmission market according to Article 102 TFEU by curtailing
capacity on the Swedish interconnectors when it anticipated internal congestion within the Swedish
transmission system, thereby discriminating between different network users.
Behaviour committed on one market that has an effect on another market can be considered an abuse
under article 102 TFEU (confirmed by the Court of Justice in Tetra Pak).
Discrimination between customers based on residence constitutes an abuse of dominant position ex
art. 102 TFEU.
The Commission's preliminary assessment was that by curtailing interconnector capacity because of
internal congestion, SvK treated domestic transmission services and transmission services to an
interconnector intended for exporting electricity differently.
FFSA
the Court has held that the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity,
regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed. In Poucet and Pistre, the Court excluded
from that concept bodies entrusted with the management of certain compulsory social security schemes
based on the principle of solidarity. The first point to note is that membership of the Coreva scheme is
optional, that the scheme operates in accordance with the principle of capitalization, and that the benefits
to which it confers entitlement depend solely on the amount of contributions paid by the recipients and
the financial results of the investments made by the managing organization. The CCMSA therefore
carries on an economic activity in competition with life assurance companies. The mere fact that the
CCMSA is a non-profit-making body does not deprive the activity which it carries on of its economic
character.
3
,AOK
The question is of groups of sickness funds are to be regarded as undertakings/associations of
undertakings when they determine fixed maximum amounts corresponding to the upper limit of the
price of medicinal products whose cost is borne by sickness funds?
In the field of social security, the Court has held that certain bodies entrusted with the management of
statutory health insurance and old-age insurance schemes pursue an exclusively social objective and do
not engage in economic activity. Their activity, based on the principle of national solidarity, is
entirely non-profit-making and the benefits paid are statutory benefits bearing no relation to the
amount of the contributions.
The fact that the amount of benefits and of contributions was, in the last resort, fixed by the State led
the Court to hold, similarly, that a body entrusted by law with a scheme providing insurance against
accidents at work and occupational diseases, such as the Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli
infortuni sul lavoro (the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work), was not an
undertaking for the purpose of the Treaty competition rules. On the other hand, other bodies managing
statutory social security systems and displaying some of the characteristics referred to in paragraph 47
of the present judgment, namely being non-profit-making and engaging in activity of a social character
which is subject to State rules that include solidarity requirements in particular, have been considered
to be undertakings engaging in economic activity.
Sickness funds in the German statutory health insurance scheme, like the bodies at issue in Poucet and
Pistre, cited above, are involved in the management of the social security system. In this regard they
fulfil an exclusively social function, which is founded on the principle of national solidarity and is
entirely non-profit making.
In its orders for reference, the Bundesgerichtshof states in this regard that the sickness funds are
joined together in a type of community founded on the basis of solidarity ('Solidargemeinschaft')
which enables an equalisation of costs and risks between them. The sickness funds are therefore
not in competition with one another or with private institutions as regards grant of the obligatory
statutory benefits in respect of treatment or medicinal products which constitutes their main
function. Therefore their activity must be regarded non-economic in nature and they do not
constitute undertakings.
It follows that, in determining those fixed maximum amounts, the fund associations do not pursue a
specific interest separable from the exclusively social objective of the sickness funds. On the contrary,
in making such a determination, the fund associations perform an obligation which is integrally
connected with the activity of the sickness funds within the framework of the German statutory health
insurance scheme.
It must accordingly be found that, in determining the fixed maximum amounts, the fund associations
merely perform a task for management of the German social security system which is imposed upon
them by legislation and that they do not act as undertakings engaging in economic activity
AG2R
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, to which Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU now correspond are in question.
It is clear from established case-law that any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a
given market is an economic activity.
AG2R is a non-profit-making legal person which is governed by private law and has as its object the
provision of cover for physical injury caused by accident or sickness. Undertakings are required to join
the scheme managed by AG2R, it follows, as a corollary, that AG2R is required, under Addendum No
83, to insure all employees of those undertakings, irrespective of the risk to be covered, in consideration
4
, of a single rate of contribution borne equally by the employer and the employee, irrespective of the size
of the undertaking or the remuneration of the employee insured. The scheme pursues therefore a social
objective. However, the social aim of an insurance scheme is not in itself sufficient to preclude the
activity in question from being classified as an economic activity. It is further necessary to
examine, in particular, whether that scheme can be regarded as applying the principle of
solidarity and to what extent it is subject to supervision by the State which instituted it, given that
these are factors that are liable to preclude a given activity from being regarded as economic.
In this case there is an uniform sum for contribution that does not take into consideration factors such
as age, state of health or any particular risks inherent in the position occupied by the insured employee.
Secondly, the services are, in certain cases, supplied irrespective of whether the contributions due have
been paid.
[…]
However, other characteristics relating to the appointment of AG2R as manager of the scheme for
supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs could lead to the view that that body enjoys a degree
of autonomy.
Accordingly, the question arises, firstly, as to the circumstances in which AG2R was designated
pursuant to Addendum No 83 and, secondly, as to the margin of negotiation enjoyed by that body
as to the details relating to its appointment and the repercussion of those factors on the
functioning of the scheme concerned as a whole.
Based on those circumstances and that margin of negotiation, which it is for the national court to
examine, it might be concluded that AG2R, although being non-profit making and acting on the
basis of the principle of solidarity, is an undertaking engaged in an economic activity which was
chosen by the social partners, on the basis of financial and economic considerations, from among
other undertakings with which it is in competition on the market in the provident services which
it offers
According to well-established case-law, however, the mere creation of a dominant ,position through the
grant of special or exclusive rights within the meaning of Article 106(1) TFEU is not in itself
incompatible with Article 102 TFEU. A Member State ,will be in breach of the prohibitions laid down
by those two provisions only if the undertaking in question, merely by exercising the exclusive rights
conferred upon it, ,is led to abuse its dominant position or where such rights are liable to create a
situation in which that undertaking is led to commit such abuses. Such an abusive practice contrary to
Article 106(1) TFEU exists where, in particular, ,a Member State grants to an undertaking an exclusive
right to carry on certain activities and creates a situation in which that undertaking is manifestly not in
a position to satisfy the demand prevailing on the market for activities of that kind.
Kattner Stahlbau
The employers’ liability insurance associations, as in this case, are public law bodies that fulfil a social
function, which is entirely non-profit-making. The statutory insurance scheme in respect of accidents
at work and occupational diseases in so far as it provides for compulsorysocial protection for all
workers, pursues a social objective.
Furthermore, the social aim of such a scheme is also highlighted by the fact that, as the documents
before the Court show, benefits are paid even when the contributions due have not been paid, which
obviously contributes to the protection of all workers against the economic consequences of accidents
at work.
However, as is clear from the case-law of the Court, the social aim of an insurance scheme is not in
itself sufficient to preclude the activity in question from being classified as an economic activity.
5
Week 1A ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Höfner and Elser ................................................................................................................................. 3
Svenska Kraftnät ................................................................................................................................. 3
FFSA ................................................................................................................................................... 3
AOK .................................................................................................................................................... 4
AG2R .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Kattner Stahlbau.................................................................................................................................. 5
Diego cali ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Sjöberg ................................................................................................................................................ 6
SAT/Selex ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Week 1B ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Intel (opinion AG Whal) ..................................................................................................................... 9
Article Bishop ................................................................................................................................... 10
Article Wils – The judgment of the EU General Court in intel and the so-called ‘more economic
approach’ to abuse of dominance...................................................................................................... 12
Pierre Fabre ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Coty ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Week 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 21
Leegin (USA Supreme Court) .......................................................................................................... 21
Week 3A ............................................................................................................................................... 22
Bayer ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Anic ................................................................................................................................................... 22
GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) ................................................................................................................... 23
LTM/MBU ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Völk/Vervaecke ................................................................................................................................ 23
Gottrup-Klim (Gøttrup-Klim) ........................................................................................................... 24
Pronuptia ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Cartes Bancaires................................................................................................................................ 24
Wouters ............................................................................................................................................. 25
OTOC................................................................................................................................................ 25
Week 3B ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Ohio/AmEX (US Supreme Court) .................................................................................................... 25
Ping ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Hoffmann-LaRoche .......................................................................................................................... 26
Lundbeck .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Week 4A ............................................................................................................................................... 27
1
, Microsoft ........................................................................................................................................... 27
AKKA/LAA...................................................................................................................................... 27
Week 4B ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Woodpulp.......................................................................................................................................... 28
Week 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Ernst & Young .................................................................................................................................. 28
CK Telecoms .................................................................................................................................... 29
Bayer/Monsanto ................................................................................................................................ 33
Week 6A ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Orkem ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Heidelberg Cement ........................................................................................................................... 34
ICAP ................................................................................................................................................. 34
DHL .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Week 6B ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Donau Chemie .................................................................................................................................. 35
Apple v. Pepper (US Supreme Court) ............................................................................................... 35
Kone .................................................................................................................................................. 35
Week 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Topkin ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Preliminary assessment in Facebook proceeding Bundeskartellamt................................................. 36
Bundeskartel1amt – Background info on the Facebook proceeding................................................. 36
Press Release European Commission on Google Shopping ............................................................. 37
Press Release European Commission on Google Android ............................................................... 37
Fact sheet European Commission on Google shopping.................................................................... 39
Microsoft ........................................................................................................................................... 39
Streetmap .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Facebook/Whatsapp .......................................................................................................................... 39
2
,Week 1A
Höfner and Elser
The question is of the granting of a monopoly to a public employment agency is in contradiction to art.
106 VWEU. Only an undertaking is subject to the competition rules. The definition of an undertaking
is:
Every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the
way in which it is financed. (Höfner & Elser)
Therefore, also a public agency can be an undertaking.
A public agency is subject to the prohibition of art. 106 VWEU, so long as the application of that
provision does not obstruct the performance of the particular task assigned to it.
Svenska Kraftnät
Sees on art. 102 VWEU. Also, the definition of an undertaking further elaborated. Svenska Kraftnät
is an undertaking, because it is engaged in economic activities as it provides services on the market.
Svenska Kraftnät is the operator of the Swedish electricity grid there a pure monopolist they're the only
ones who can operate and construct high voltage power lines in all of Sweden, so they have a 100%
market share. There is no market, well there is a market but it's not a competitive market. There is at
least the potential possibility for someone else to start operating that electricity grid. Even if the state
would not open up the market, the competition rules still apply if there is an economic activity.
In the preliminary assessment, the Commission raised concerns that SvK may have abused its dominant
position on the Swedish electricity transmission market according to Article 102 TFEU by curtailing
capacity on the Swedish interconnectors when it anticipated internal congestion within the Swedish
transmission system, thereby discriminating between different network users.
Behaviour committed on one market that has an effect on another market can be considered an abuse
under article 102 TFEU (confirmed by the Court of Justice in Tetra Pak).
Discrimination between customers based on residence constitutes an abuse of dominant position ex
art. 102 TFEU.
The Commission's preliminary assessment was that by curtailing interconnector capacity because of
internal congestion, SvK treated domestic transmission services and transmission services to an
interconnector intended for exporting electricity differently.
FFSA
the Court has held that the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity,
regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed. In Poucet and Pistre, the Court excluded
from that concept bodies entrusted with the management of certain compulsory social security schemes
based on the principle of solidarity. The first point to note is that membership of the Coreva scheme is
optional, that the scheme operates in accordance with the principle of capitalization, and that the benefits
to which it confers entitlement depend solely on the amount of contributions paid by the recipients and
the financial results of the investments made by the managing organization. The CCMSA therefore
carries on an economic activity in competition with life assurance companies. The mere fact that the
CCMSA is a non-profit-making body does not deprive the activity which it carries on of its economic
character.
3
,AOK
The question is of groups of sickness funds are to be regarded as undertakings/associations of
undertakings when they determine fixed maximum amounts corresponding to the upper limit of the
price of medicinal products whose cost is borne by sickness funds?
In the field of social security, the Court has held that certain bodies entrusted with the management of
statutory health insurance and old-age insurance schemes pursue an exclusively social objective and do
not engage in economic activity. Their activity, based on the principle of national solidarity, is
entirely non-profit-making and the benefits paid are statutory benefits bearing no relation to the
amount of the contributions.
The fact that the amount of benefits and of contributions was, in the last resort, fixed by the State led
the Court to hold, similarly, that a body entrusted by law with a scheme providing insurance against
accidents at work and occupational diseases, such as the Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli
infortuni sul lavoro (the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work), was not an
undertaking for the purpose of the Treaty competition rules. On the other hand, other bodies managing
statutory social security systems and displaying some of the characteristics referred to in paragraph 47
of the present judgment, namely being non-profit-making and engaging in activity of a social character
which is subject to State rules that include solidarity requirements in particular, have been considered
to be undertakings engaging in economic activity.
Sickness funds in the German statutory health insurance scheme, like the bodies at issue in Poucet and
Pistre, cited above, are involved in the management of the social security system. In this regard they
fulfil an exclusively social function, which is founded on the principle of national solidarity and is
entirely non-profit making.
In its orders for reference, the Bundesgerichtshof states in this regard that the sickness funds are
joined together in a type of community founded on the basis of solidarity ('Solidargemeinschaft')
which enables an equalisation of costs and risks between them. The sickness funds are therefore
not in competition with one another or with private institutions as regards grant of the obligatory
statutory benefits in respect of treatment or medicinal products which constitutes their main
function. Therefore their activity must be regarded non-economic in nature and they do not
constitute undertakings.
It follows that, in determining those fixed maximum amounts, the fund associations do not pursue a
specific interest separable from the exclusively social objective of the sickness funds. On the contrary,
in making such a determination, the fund associations perform an obligation which is integrally
connected with the activity of the sickness funds within the framework of the German statutory health
insurance scheme.
It must accordingly be found that, in determining the fixed maximum amounts, the fund associations
merely perform a task for management of the German social security system which is imposed upon
them by legislation and that they do not act as undertakings engaging in economic activity
AG2R
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, to which Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU now correspond are in question.
It is clear from established case-law that any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a
given market is an economic activity.
AG2R is a non-profit-making legal person which is governed by private law and has as its object the
provision of cover for physical injury caused by accident or sickness. Undertakings are required to join
the scheme managed by AG2R, it follows, as a corollary, that AG2R is required, under Addendum No
83, to insure all employees of those undertakings, irrespective of the risk to be covered, in consideration
4
, of a single rate of contribution borne equally by the employer and the employee, irrespective of the size
of the undertaking or the remuneration of the employee insured. The scheme pursues therefore a social
objective. However, the social aim of an insurance scheme is not in itself sufficient to preclude the
activity in question from being classified as an economic activity. It is further necessary to
examine, in particular, whether that scheme can be regarded as applying the principle of
solidarity and to what extent it is subject to supervision by the State which instituted it, given that
these are factors that are liable to preclude a given activity from being regarded as economic.
In this case there is an uniform sum for contribution that does not take into consideration factors such
as age, state of health or any particular risks inherent in the position occupied by the insured employee.
Secondly, the services are, in certain cases, supplied irrespective of whether the contributions due have
been paid.
[…]
However, other characteristics relating to the appointment of AG2R as manager of the scheme for
supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs could lead to the view that that body enjoys a degree
of autonomy.
Accordingly, the question arises, firstly, as to the circumstances in which AG2R was designated
pursuant to Addendum No 83 and, secondly, as to the margin of negotiation enjoyed by that body
as to the details relating to its appointment and the repercussion of those factors on the
functioning of the scheme concerned as a whole.
Based on those circumstances and that margin of negotiation, which it is for the national court to
examine, it might be concluded that AG2R, although being non-profit making and acting on the
basis of the principle of solidarity, is an undertaking engaged in an economic activity which was
chosen by the social partners, on the basis of financial and economic considerations, from among
other undertakings with which it is in competition on the market in the provident services which
it offers
According to well-established case-law, however, the mere creation of a dominant ,position through the
grant of special or exclusive rights within the meaning of Article 106(1) TFEU is not in itself
incompatible with Article 102 TFEU. A Member State ,will be in breach of the prohibitions laid down
by those two provisions only if the undertaking in question, merely by exercising the exclusive rights
conferred upon it, ,is led to abuse its dominant position or where such rights are liable to create a
situation in which that undertaking is led to commit such abuses. Such an abusive practice contrary to
Article 106(1) TFEU exists where, in particular, ,a Member State grants to an undertaking an exclusive
right to carry on certain activities and creates a situation in which that undertaking is manifestly not in
a position to satisfy the demand prevailing on the market for activities of that kind.
Kattner Stahlbau
The employers’ liability insurance associations, as in this case, are public law bodies that fulfil a social
function, which is entirely non-profit-making. The statutory insurance scheme in respect of accidents
at work and occupational diseases in so far as it provides for compulsorysocial protection for all
workers, pursues a social objective.
Furthermore, the social aim of such a scheme is also highlighted by the fact that, as the documents
before the Court show, benefits are paid even when the contributions due have not been paid, which
obviously contributes to the protection of all workers against the economic consequences of accidents
at work.
However, as is clear from the case-law of the Court, the social aim of an insurance scheme is not in
itself sufficient to preclude the activity in question from being classified as an economic activity.
5
