The indirect route of securing interest of consumers and competitors under the EU competition law

La ruta indirecta para asegurar los intereses de los consumidores y competidores bajo el derecho de la competencia de la Unión Europea

The theme of the present article is to deliver the notion that in order to enforce competition rules which, are aimed at maintaining a balance between profitability of the competitors and welfare of the consumers, the crucial aspect in attainting it is a healthy competitive market. Therefore, an attempt is made to analyses the role and practice of the European Courts and the Commission in protecting the structure of the competitive market as a means to secure the interests of the consumers and competitors. To convey the notion of the paper, sustenance from one of the imperative decisions given by the European Court of Justice purporting the predominant idea has been taken from the case of GlaxoSmithKline v Commission¹ and other relevant cases from the locales of Article 101 coupled with Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The idea is to critically discuss the rationale of the decision delivered by the hierarchy of courts, the object-effect dichotomy under Article 101(1) for apprehending anti- competitive conduct, and to reflect upon the Commission guidelines.

1. Richard Whish and David Bailey, Competition Law, 8th Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015).
2. Wolf Sauter, ‘ Coherence in EU Competition Law’, Oxford University Press, first ed. 2016.
3. Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, (2004/C 101/07) Commission Notice, Official Journal of the European Union, C 101/81.
4. Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, Official Journal of European Union, (2011/C 11/01).
5. Commission’s Guidance on Article 102 Enforcement Priorities, OJ [2009] C 45/7.
6. Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings [1990] OJ L257/13.
7. Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation), Official Journal L 024, 29/01/2004 P. 0001- 0022.
8. Bright EU Competition Policy: Rules, Objectives and Deregulation (1996) 16 OJLS 535.
10. Speech/05/512 of 15 September 2005 delivered by Neelie Kroes, a member of European Commission on European Competition Policy – Delivering Better Markets and Better Choices.
11. SPEECH/05/537, 23 September 2005; Lowe Innovation and Regulation of Dominant Firms; 23 September 2008 and Alumnia converging paths in unilateral conduct, 3 December 2010.
12. B. Cases:
13. Case C-501/06 P, GlaxoSmithKline v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2009:610.
14. Case 6/72, Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, [1973] ECR 215.
15. Case C-8/ 08, T- Mobile Netherlands BV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, [2009] ECR I- 4529.
16. Case- 56/64, Consten and Grunding, ECLI:EU:C1966:41.
17. Case C‐67/13 P, Groupement des Cartes Bancaires, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2204.
18. Joined Cases C‐403/08 and C‐429/08, 631, Football Association Premier League, ECLI:EU:C:2011.
19. Case C‐32/11, Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt, ECLI:EU:C:2013:160.
20. Case C-209/07, Beef Industry, ECLI:EU:C:2008:643.
21. Case C-280/08 P, Deutsche Telekom v Commission, [2010] ECR I-9555.
23. Case C-52/09, Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige, [2011] ECR I-527.
24. Case C-209/10, Post Denmark, EU:C: 2012:172.
25. Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, [1979] ECR 461.
26. Case T-203/01, Michelin v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2003:250.
27. Case C-95/04 P, British Airways Plc v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:166.
28. Case 6/73 and 7/73, Commercial Solvents v Commission, [1974] ECR 223.
29. Case COMP/M.2220, General Electric/Honeywell [2004] OJ L48/1.