Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competition Law: The Brussels Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Handbook of EEA Law

  • 1284 Accesses

Abstract

The EEA competition rules on restrictive agreements and abuse of dominant positions have given rise to a small number of cases, of which Posten Norge is the most important. That case deals with judicial review of EFTA Surveillance Authority decisions. The Court found that Posten Norge had abused its position by negotiating with its supermarket customers in such a way as to delay market entry by competitors at a crucial time, an important conclusion on a question not decided by the EU Courts. There are a number of cases on State alcohol and gambling monopolies. These cases involve detailed analysis of facts and justifications for monopolies. In two DB Schenker cases the Court stressed the importance of private claims for compensation for loss caused by breach of EEA competition rules. One gets the clear impression that the EFTA Court deals more concisely and confidently with economic issues in competition cases than either of the EU Courts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Norberg (2012), pp. 29–52; Norberg (1990), pp. 63–75; Temple Lang (1990), pp. 17–62.

  2. 2.

    Strictly, all the EU Member States are also parties to the EEA Agreement, and are therefore ‘EEA States’.

  3. 3.

    See Blanco (2013), ch. 28, Competition Law and Procedure in the European Economic Area 1023–1071; Norberg et al. (1993), ch. XX; Bourgeois (2006), pp. 125–135. Sometimes there is a delay in adopting EEA Notices. The EEA notice on Guidelines on the applicability of Article 53 to horizontal cooperation agreements was published only in O. J. No. C-362/3, 2013.

  4. 4.

    Case E-15/10 Posten Norge [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246, discussed below.

  5. 5.

    On what is now Article 4(3) TEU, see General Report The duties of cooperation of national authorities and courts and the Community institutions under Article 10 EC Treaty, in XIX F.I.D.E. Congress, Helsinki (2000), pp. 373–426: Almestad, The EEA variant, vol. 1, 427–445: vol. IV 65–72; Temple Lang (2008), pp. 1483–1532.

  6. 6.

    EFTA Surveillance Authority Annual Report (2011), p. 45.

  7. 7.

    EFTA Surveillance Authority Annual Report (2011), p. 1.

  8. 8.

    Temple Lang (2013a).

  9. 9.

    As a result the Commission routinely concludes that a price fixing agreement has infringed both Article 53 EEA and Article 101 TFEU, where there is evidence that the agreement has had effects on the three EEA/EFTA States as well as the EU.

  10. 10.

    The EEA merger control rules are set out in Annex XIV and Protocol 24, EEA, and in Part III of Protocol 4 SCA. ESA has not adopted its own interpretative Notices on mergers, but applies those of the Commission.

  11. 11.

    Annual Report 2010, p. 49.

  12. 12.

    Case COMP/M.5529, Commission decision of January 21, 2010.

  13. 13.

    See Bjorgvinsson (2007), pp. 37–50; Orlygsson (2007), pp. 225–242; Temple Lang (2012a), pp. 100–135.

  14. 14.

    Case E-3/97 Jaeger v. Opel Norge [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1.

  15. 15.

    Case E-8/00 Landsorganisasjonen I Norge v. Komminenes Sentralforbund [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114.

  16. 16.

    Case C-67/96 Albany [1999] ECR I-5751: Joined Cases C-115/97 to C-117/97 Brentjens [1999] ECR I-6025: Case C-219/97 Drijvende Bokken [1999] ECR I-6121: Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov [2000] ECR I-645: Case C-222/98 van der Woude [2000] ECR I-7111.

  17. 17.

    Case C-67/96 Albany, cited above, opinion of Advocate General Jacobs points. 24 and 25.

  18. 18.

    Case C-438/05 Viking Line [2007] ECR I-10779 opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, point. 27, describing Albany as recognising ‘a limited antitrust immunity’.

  19. 19.

    Case E-7/01 Hegelstad v. Hydro Texaco [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 310.

  20. 20.

    Case E-1/94 Liiton Kustannus Restamark [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15.

  21. 21.

    Case E-1/97 Gundersen v. Oslo [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 108.

  22. 22.

    Case E-6/96 Wilhelmsen [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 53.

  23. 23.

    Case E-4/01 Karlsson [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 240.

  24. 24.

    Case C-189/95 Franzén [1997] ECR I-5909.

  25. 25.

    Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 95: Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR-5357.

  26. 26.

    Case E-4/05 HOB – vín [2006] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4; see also Case E-19/11 Vín Tríó v. Iceland [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 974. ‘In the absence of domestic production of a product, a measure will….. be discriminatory if it is apparent that it protects domestic products which are similar to the products covered by the contested rules or which are in competition with those products’ (paragraph 60).

  27. 27.

    Case E-1/06 EFTA ESA v. Norway (gaming machines) [2007] EFTA Ct Rep. 7.

  28. 28.

    Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes v. Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 86.

  29. 29.

    Menarini Diagnostics v. Italy, ECtHR, case 43509/08.

  30. 30.

    Cases C-272/09 P, and C-389/10 P KME Germany [2011] ECR I-13125: Case T-21/05, Chalkor [2010] ECR II-1895.

  31. 31.

    Posten Norge, cited above, paragraphs 99 and 100.

  32. 32.

    Temple Lang (2012c), pp. 136–155; O’Donoghue and Padilla (2013), ch. 5; González-Díaz and Temple Lang (2013), pp. 115–158.

  33. 33.

    Para. 126.

  34. 34.

    The argument that a sufficient part of the market was still contestable was also rejected by the European Court of Justice in Case C-549/10 P, Tomra Systems, [2012] ECR I-221, paragraph 42. Since the contestable share argument is not a valid defence, it is not clear that it should be regarded as a useful element in the approach suggested in the Commission’s Guidance Notice.

  35. 35.

    Centre for European Policy Studies Task Force (2009).

  36. 36.

    Case E-7/12 DB Schenker v. EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘DB Schenker II’) [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 356, paragraph 109. See also Case E-14/11 DB Schenker v. ESA (‘DB Schenker I’) [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1178 paragraphs. 78 and 121 (referring to the European Ombudsman).

  37. 37.

    At para. 77. The EFTA Court made the same statement in Case E-7/01, Hegelstad v. Hydro Texaco, [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 310, para. 27: in Case E-4/05 HoB-Vin v. Iceland [2006] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4, para. 51.

  38. 38.

    Centre for European Policy Studies Task Force (2009), pp. 49–54.

  39. 39.

    EFTA Surveillance Authority, Annual Report for 2012, page 44.

  40. 40.

    Color Line decision, No. 59120 dated 14th December 2011 paragraph 615.

  41. 41.

    Color Line decision, paragraph 529, citing Case E-3/97, Jan and Christian Jaeger, [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1 and Case E-8/00, Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114.

  42. 42.

    Case E-7/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 95.

  43. 43.

    Case E-14/11 DB Schenker I, cited above.

  44. 44.

    Case C-453/99 Crehan v. Courage [2001] ECR I-6297.

    Case T-437/98 CDC Hydrogene Peroxide [2011] ECR II-08251.

    Case C-298/04 Manfredi, [2006] ECR I-6619.

  45. 45.

    Case E-7/12 DB Schenker II, cited above.

  46. 46.

    Case C-536/11 Donau Chemie [2013] ECR I-366.

  47. 47.

    See also Temple Lang (2013b), pp. 8–9 (on the practical problems arising when one national court finds a judgment of a court in another Member State unsatisfactory). The constitutional issues referred to seem to concern the question whether it is legitimate for a court to be bound by the decision of an administrative authority in another State, and when it is permissible for a court to be bound by a judgment of a court in another State.

  48. 48.

    Case E-18/14 Wow air [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1304.

  49. 49.

    Case C-280/08 P Deutsche Telekom [2010] ECR I-9555.

  50. 50.

    Case E-8/13 Abelia Order dated 29th August 2014.

  51. 51.

    Case C-550/07 P Akzo Nobel [2010] ECR I-8301.

  52. 52.

    Case C-209/10, Post Danmark [2012] ECR I.¤

  53. 53.

    Case C-549/109 P, Tomra [2012] ECR I-221.

  54. 54.

    Joined Cases 40 to 48/73, Suiker Unie [1975] ECR 1663 at paragraphs 523 and 527: Case C-41/90, Höfner and Elser v. Macrotron [1991] ECR I-1979: Case C-241/91P, RTE and ITP [1995] ECR I-743 at paragraph 54: Case C-55/96, Job Centre [1927] ECR I-7119: Case T-201/04 Microsoft [2007] ECR II-3601 at paragraphs 643 to 648: Cases C-468/06 to 478/06, GloxoSmithKline [2008] ECR I-7139 at paragraphs. 33, 39, 49.

  55. 55.

    Temple Lang (2011), pp. 219–256.

  56. 56.

    Case C-526/04 Laboratoires Boiron [2006] ECR I-7529.

  57. 57.

    For a recent judgment, see Case C-351/12 OSA [2014] ECR-I.

  58. 58.

    Annual Report 2011, page 2.

  59. 59.

    In Case E-1/06 ESA v. Norway (Gaming Machines), cited above, the statement of the case against Norway was extremely long and detailed.

References

  • Bjorgvinsson DT (2007) Application of Article 34 of the ESA/Court Agreement by the Icelandic courts. In: Monti M et al (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalisation. Stämpli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco LO (ed) (2013) EC competition procedure, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois J (2006) The EEA rules on competition: odd man out or model for multilateral rules. In: Johansson M et al (eds) A European for all seasons. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for European Policy Studies Task Force (2009) Treatment of exclusionary abuses under article 82 of the EC treaty: comments on the commission’s guidance paper, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EFTA Surveillance Authority Annual Report 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Federation Internationale pour le Droit Europeean, XIX Congress, Helsinki (2000) The duties of cooperation of national authorities and courts and the Community institutions under Article 10 EC Treaty, vol. 1 and 4

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Díaz FE, Temple Lang J (2013) The concept of abuse. In: González-Díaz FE, Snelders R (eds) Abuse of dominance under article 102 TFEU. Claeys & Casteels, Leuven, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg J (1990) Legal and institutional aspects of EC-EFTA relations in a dynamic and homogenous European Economic Space- a EFTA point of view. In: Robinson M, Findlater J (eds) Creating a European Economic Space: legal aspects of EC-EFTA relations. Irish Centre for European Law, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg S (2012) Justice in the European Economic Area – the role of the EFTA Court. In: Court EFTA (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg S et al (1993) EEA law: a commentary of the EEA Agreement. Fritzes, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue R, Padilla J (2013) The law and economics of article 102 TFEU. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlygsson T (2007) Iceland and the EFTA Court. In: Monti M et al (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalisation. Nomos, Baden Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (1990) Institutional aspects of EC-EFTA relations. In: Robinson M, Findlater J (eds) Creating a European Economic Space: legal aspects of EC-EFTA relations. Irish Centre for European Law, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2008) The development by the Court of Justice of the duties of cooperation of national authorities and Community institutions under Article 10 EC. Fordham Int Law J 31:1483–1532

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2011) Three possibilities for reforms of the procedure of the European Commission in competition cases and regulation 1/2003. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) Current developments in European and International Competition Law, 17 St Gallen International Competition Law Forum 2010. Helbing, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2012a) The duty of national courts to provide access to justice in the EEA. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers. Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2012b) Judicial review of competition decisions under the European convention of human rights and the importance of the EFTA Court: the Norway post judgment. Eur Law Rev 37:464

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2012c) How can the problems of exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU be resolved? Eur Law Rev 37:136

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2013a) The strengths and weaknesses of the DG Competition Manual of Procedure. 1 J Antitrust Enforcement (2013), Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2013b) The private claims directive. Competition Law Insight

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, Brussels, Belgium

    John Temple Lang

Authors
  1. John Temple Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Temple Lang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Carl Baudenbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Temple Lang, J. (2016). Competition Law: The Brussels Perspective. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24341-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24343-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation