Market Power and Dominance

On 26 April 2012, Advocate General Jaaskinen handed down an opinion on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian Supreme Court on whether Article 102 of the TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that a public authority acts as an undertaking where it stores information reported by undertakings and allows inspection to be made in return for payment, but prevents more extensive use of the information.

On 12 March 2009, the CAT handed down a judgment on an application to reject parts of the damages action brought by Enron Coal Services Limited against English Welsh and Scottish Railway Limited.

The Court of First Instance (CFI) has published an order, dated 27 November 2007, by which it removed from its register an appeal lodged by Microsoft to challenge the European Commission's position that Microsoft was obliged, under remedies imposed for breach of Article 82, to make available certain source code information to third parties (Case T-313/05) (see Legal update, Details of further Microsoft appeal published). The appeal was withdrawn at Microsoft's request following the Commission's announcement that Microsoft is now in compliance with the interoperability remedy imposed in the 2004 Article 82 infringement decision and Microsoft's decision not to appeal the CFI judgment upholding the 2004 decision (see Legal update, Microsoft withdraws appeals and confirms that it will not appeal CFI judgment).

On 23 April 2007, the European Commission announced (MEMO/07/148) that it has now received Microsoft's response to the statement of objections sent on 1 March 2007 (see Legal update, Commission issues further statement of objections to Microsoft in relation to non-implementation of remedial action). The statement of objections set out the Commission's concerns that the interoperability information provided by Microsoft, to comply with the remedial obligation imposed as part of the Commission's 2004 Article 82 infringement decision, contains no significant innovation and, therefore, the prices charged by Microsoft for this information are unreasonable. Under the remedial obligation, Microsoft is required to provide complete interoperability information on terms that are reasonable and non-discriminatory. The Commission initially gave Microsoft four weeks to reply to the statement of objections, but extended this period by a further 20 days. It notes that Microsoft has not requested an oral hearing on this matter. The Commission will now consider Microsoft's submission in order to determine whether to issue another decision under Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003, imposing a further daily penalty payment on Microsoft for non-compliance with the undertakings. The Commission is still considering the issue of whether the interoperability information made available by Microsoft is now complete and accurate (see Legal update, Commission confirms that Microsoft has submi

On 5 November 2008, the European Commission announced that its officials have carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the cement and related products industry in several member states.

On 1 March 2007, the European Commission announced that it has issued a statement of objections to Microsoft alleging its failure to comply with certain of its obligations in the March 2004 decision finding that Microsoft had infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty. The Commission considers that Microsoft has not complied with the remedial obligation requiring it to provide interoperability information, needed to allow non-Microsoft work group services to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The Commission's preliminary view is that the interoperability information provided by Microsoft contains no significant innovation and, therefore, the prices charged by Microsoft for it are unreasonable.

On 6 February 2007, an official summary was published in the Official Journal (OJ 2007 L32/23) of the European Commission's March 2004 decision finding that Microsoft Corporation had infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty by leveraging its dominant position in the market for personal computer operating systems into the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players (see Legal update, Commission announces Microsoft infringement decision). The full non-confidential version of the decision is also available on the DG Competition website. The final report of the Hearing Officer and two Opinions of the Advisory Committee have also been published (OJ 2007 C26/2-5). The progress of Microsoft's appeal against this decision and of the penalty payments in relation to non-implementation of remedies can be tracked at Microsoft, Microsoft remedies and Microsoft (penalty payments).

On 22 May 2008, the European Commission announced that it has taken note of an announcement by Microsoft that it intends to support the ODF (OpenDocument Format) in the Microsoft Office system (MEMO/08/324). The Commission states that it would welcome any step by Microsoft towards "genuine interoperability, more consumer choice and less vendor lock-in". The Commission will investigate whether this development will lead to better interoperability and customer choice as part of its ongoing investigation into possible breaches of Article 82 in relation to interoperability of competitors' products with Microsoft Office (see Legal update, Commission announces that it has initiated Article 82 proceedings against Microsoft in two cases). Microsoft announced on 21 May 2008 that, with the release of Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 2 (SP2) scheduled for the first half of 2009, ODF v1.1 and certain other additional document formats will be supported by Microsoft Office 2007. Microsoft also announced that, consistent with its own interoperability principles by which it committed to work with others toward robust, consistent and interoperable implementations across a broad range of widely deployed products, Microsoft will be an active participant in the future evolution of ODF, Open XML, XPS and PDF standards (see also Legal update, Commission statement on Microsoft's announcement of new interoperability principles).

A Q&A guide to competition law in Argentina. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Austria. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. For a full list of recommended competition law firms and lawyers in Austria, please visit PLC Which lawyer? To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of Competition jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Bulgaria. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in China. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the Czech Republic. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Finland. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.  

A Q&A guide to competition law in Greece. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in India. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Israel. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Japan. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. For a full list of recommended competition law firms and lawyers in Japan, please visit PLC Which lawyer? To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Norway. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Romania. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in South Africa. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Spain. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Switzerland. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the UK (England and Wales). The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the United States. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Belgium. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. It covers relevant triggering events and thresholds; notification requirements, procedures and timetables; third party claims; exclusions and exemptions; penalties for breach; and proposals for reform. For a full list of recommended competition law firms and lawyers in Belgium, please visit PLC Which lawyer? This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competitionhandbook.

On 9 February 2008, details were published in the Official Journal of two actions lodged by Ryanair before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Ryanair is alleging that the Commission failed to act in relation to complaints lodged by Ryanair alleging breach of Article 82 and the grant of unlawful state aid in relation to respectively the airline Volare and the airlines Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana.

On 12 July 2012, the ECJ handed down a ruling on a reference from an Austrian court on the question of whether a public authority acts as an undertaking, for the purposes of Article 102 of the TFEU, where it stores data reported by  companies and allows inspection to be made in return for payment, but prevents more extensive use of the data.

On 24 November 2011, the General Court dismissed an appeal brought by the European Federation of Ink and Cartridge Manufacturers against a European Commission decision to reject a complaint.

A summary of a concluded OFT investigation under the Competition Act 1998.

The European Commission has issued a statement of objections to Microsoft for failing to comply with obligations imposed in 2004.

On 19 October 2007, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) announced that it has received a complaint from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) in relation to schools software licensing arrangements. It states that it will consider the complaint carefully. Becta is the government's lead partner in the strategic development and delivery of its e-strategy. In this role it provides the government with advice, co-ordinates the government's e-strategy for education and acts as strategic delivery partner. According to a press release issued by Becta, the complaint relates to alleged anti-competitive practices by Microsoft in the schools software marketplace and in relation to Microsoft's approach to document interoperability. Becta has been preparing a report into Microsoft's Academic Licensing arrangements. It states that it identified a number of concerns that impact on choice, competition and value for money for schools. Despite discussions with Microsoft, Becta claims that concerns remain about limitations that Microsoft places on schools using its subscription licensing arrangements and the potential interoperability difficulties for schools, pupils and parents who wish to use alternatives to Microsoft's Office suite, including "free to use" alternatives. Becta hopes that referring these issues to the OFT may result in it addressing them promptly.

The Swiss Federal Competition Commission (FCC) opened a number of investigations in November 2004.

A summary of an action brought before the CFI in relation to an alleged failure by the Commission to act on a competition complaint.

A summary of an action brought before the CFI in relation to the Commission's failure to act on a competition complaint.