Part III
Substantive Law

17. Competition Law: Private Undertakings  

Cases

Download Content

  • Joined Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig
    Joined Cases 56 and 58/64 56/64 Établissements Consten S.à.R.L. and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v Commission of the European Economic Community (1966); FFull Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 56/65 Societe Technique Miniere
    In Case 56/65 Société Technique Minière (L.T.M.) v Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (M.B.U.) (1966) ECR 00337; Competition law, private undertakings, prohibition based on economic assessment.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 6/72 Continental Can
    Case 6/72 Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (1973) ECR -00215; Competition law, private undertakings, relevant market, dominant position, measures having an effect on the market.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Joined Cases 6-7/73 Commercial Solvents
    Joined Cases 6/73 and 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission of the European Communities (1974) ECR -00223; Competition law, private undertakings, dominant position within the market in raw material, abuseFull Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 15/74 Centrafarm
    Case 15/74 Centrafarm BV and Adriaan de Peijper v Winthrop BV (1974) ECR -00183; Competition law, private undertakings, agreements between parent company and subsidiaries.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Short summary
  • Case 26/76 Metro v Saba
    Case 26/76 Metro SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (1977) ECR -01875; Competition law, private undertakings, application for a finding that an infringement has occured, dominant position on the market.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 322/81 Michelin I
    Case 322/81 NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (1983) ECR 03461; Competition law, private undertakings, abuse of a dominant position, discounts on tyre purchases.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Joined Cases 25-6/84 Ford v Commission
    Joined Cases 25 and 26/84 Ford - Werke AG and Ford of Europe Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (1985) ECR -02725; Competition law, private undertakings, distribution systems, agreements, decisions and concerted practices, prohibition.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 42/84 Remia and Nutricia
    Case 42/84 Remia BV and others v Commission of the European Communities (1985) ECR -02545; Competition law, private undertakings, non-competition clause laid down in connection with the transfer of an undertaking.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Joined Cases 142 and 156/84 British American Tobacco
    Joined Cases 142 and 156/84 British-American Tobacco Company Ltd and R. J. Reynolds Industries Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (1987) ECR -04487; Competition law, private undertakings, rights of complainants, shareholding in a competing company.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 161/84 Pronuptia
    Case 161/84 Pronuptia de Paris GmbH v Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgallis (1986) ECR 00353; Competition law, private undertakings, franchise agreements.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 62/86 AKZO
    Case 62/86 AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities (1991) ECR I-03359; Competition law, private undertakings, eliminatory practices of a dominant undertaking.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 234/89 Delimitis
    Case 234/89 Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Bräu AG (1991) ECR I-00935; Competition law, private undertakings, beer supply agreements, effect on intra-Community trade.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Short summary
  • Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser
    Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH (1991) ECR I-01979; Competition law, private undertakings, executive recruitment consultants.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Joined Cases C-159-60/91 Poucet and Pistre
    Joined Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91 Christian Poucet v Assurances Générales de France and Caisse Mutuelle Régionale du Languedoc-Roussillon (1993) ECR I-00637; Competition law, concept of undertaking, organisation charged with the management of a special security scheme, national legislation attributing a dominant position to such an organisation.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Joined Cases C-241/91P and 242/91P Magill
    Joined Cases C-241/91P and C-242/91P Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission of the European Communities (1995) ECR I-00743; Competition law, private undertakings, abuse of a dominant position, copyright.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case C-333/94P Tetra Pak
    Casse C-333/94P Tetra Pak International SA v Commission of the European Communities (1996) ECR I-05951; Competition law, private undertakings, dominant position, definition of the product markets, predatory prices, fine.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Joined Cases C-395-6/96P CEWAL
    Joined Cases C-395/96P and C-396/96P Compagnie maritime belge transports SA (C-395/96 P), Compagnie maritime belge SA (C-395/96 P) and Dafra-Lines A/S (C-396/96 P) v Commission of the European Communities (2000) ECR I-01365; Competition law, international maritime transport.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case C-7/97 Bronner
    Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (1998) ECR I-07791; Competition law, private undertakings, abuse of a dominant position.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case T-112/99 Metropole Television
    Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6), Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, France Télécom and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) v Commission of the European Communities (2001) ECR II-02459; Competition law, pay television, joint venture, negative clearance.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case T-193/02 Piau
    Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v Commission of the European Communities (2005) ECR II-00209; Comeptition law, decision by an association of undertakings.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case C-95/04P British Airways
    Case C-95/04P British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities (2007) ECR I-02331; Competition law, private undertakings, abuse of dominant position, airline, agreements with travel agents.Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • C17 T-201-04 Microsoft
    MICROSOFT v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Grand Chamber) 17 September 2007 * In Case T-201/04, Microsoft Corp., established in Redmond, Washington (United States), represented by J.-F.Bellis, lawyer, and I .Forrester QC, applicant, supported by The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc,, established in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois (United States), represented by G. van…Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • T-203/01 Michelin
    JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 2003 — CASE T-203/01 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 30 September 2003 * s sb ch on üt z is e. ed eu ca se s In Case T-203/01, Manufacture française des pneumatiques Michelin, established in ClermontFerrand (France), represented by J.-F. Bellis, M. Wellinger, D. Waelbroeck and…Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • C17 T-342-07 Ryanair
    JUDGMENT OF 6. 7. 2010 — CASE T-342/07 JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) 6 July 2010 * In Case T-342/07, Ryanair Holdings plc, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by J. Swift QC, V. Power, A. McCarthy and D. Hull, Solicitors, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, applicant, v European Commission, represented by X. Lewis and S. Noë, acting as Agents, defendant, *  Language of…Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • Case 85/76 Hoffmann la Roche
    JUDGMENT OF 13. 2. 1979 - CASE 85/76 trading parties in that two purchasers pay a different price for the same quantity of the same product depending on whether they obtain their supplies exclusively from the undertaking in a dominant position or have several sources of supply. clause of this kind is such as to…Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • C-209/10 Post Danmark
    Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 27  March  2012 * ((Article  82 EC — Postal undertaking with a dominant position and subject to a universal service obligation with regard to certain addressed mail — Low prices charged to certain former customers of a competitor — No evidence relating to intention — Price discrimination…Full Lisbonised Judgment
  • T-41.96 Bayer
    BAYER V COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 26 October 2000 * s sb ch on üt z is e. ed eu ca se s In Case T-41/96, Bayer AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the…Full Lisbonised Judgment