EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CA0209
Case C-209/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Article 82 EC — Postal undertaking with a dominant position 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 — Selectively low prices — Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor — Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers — Objective justification)
Case C-209/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Article 82 EC — Postal undertaking with a dominant position 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 — Selectively low prices — Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor — Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers — Objective justification)
Case C-209/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Article 82 EC — Postal undertaking with a dominant position 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 — Selectively low prices — Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor — Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers — Objective justification)
IO C 151, 26.5.2012, p. 4–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.5.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 151/4 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
(Case C-209/10) (1)
(Article 82 EC - Postal undertaking with a dominant position 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 - Selectively low prices - Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor - Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers - Objective justification)
2012/C 151/06
Language of the case: Danish
Referring court
Højesteret
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Post Danmark A/S
Defendant: Konkurrencerådet
Intervener: Forbruger-Kontakt a-s
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU) — Abuse of a dominant position — Postal undertaking holding a dominant position and subject to the obligation to distribute addressed letters and parcels, applying selective price reductions for distribution of unaddressed mail at levels lower than its overall average costs, but higher than its incremental average costs — Abuse aimed at eliminating a competitor
Operative part of the judgment
Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a policy by which a dominant undertaking charges low prices to certain major customers of a competitor may not be considered to amount to an exclusionary abuse merely because the price that undertaking charges one of those customers is lower than the average total costs attributed to the activity concerned, but higher than the average incremental costs pertaining to that activity, as estimated in the procedure giving rise to the case in the main proceedings. In order to assess the existence of anti-competitive effects in circumstances such as those of that case, it is necessary to consider whether that pricing policy, without objective justification, produces an actual or likely exclusionary effect, to the detriment of competition and, thereby, of consumers’ interests.