Dubiös dominans - En analys av marknadsdefinitionen och innebörden av hävstångseffekten
(2013) JURM02 20131Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Det finns ett antal olika konkurrensregler inom den europeiska unionens regelverk. Den här uppsatsen behandlar artikel 102 som reglerar missbruk av en dominerande ställning. Varje konkurrensärende måste påbörjas med att en marknad avgränsas. Just då bedömningen avser artikel 102 förfaranden ter sig marknadsdefinitionen än viktigare. Vid avgränsningen av marknaden använder sig kommissionen av kvantitativa tester, och då framförallt det ‘hypotetiska monopolist testet’. Det innebär att kommissionen mäter utbytbarheten på produkter i förhållande till en liten men signifikant prishöjning på det undersökta företagets produkt. Kommissionen utför marknadsavgränsningen med hjälp av empiriskt baserade uppgifter, men även med kvalitativa resonemang.... (More)
- Det finns ett antal olika konkurrensregler inom den europeiska unionens regelverk. Den här uppsatsen behandlar artikel 102 som reglerar missbruk av en dominerande ställning. Varje konkurrensärende måste påbörjas med att en marknad avgränsas. Just då bedömningen avser artikel 102 förfaranden ter sig marknadsdefinitionen än viktigare. Vid avgränsningen av marknaden använder sig kommissionen av kvantitativa tester, och då framförallt det ‘hypotetiska monopolist testet’. Det innebär att kommissionen mäter utbytbarheten på produkter i förhållande till en liten men signifikant prishöjning på det undersökta företagets produkt. Kommissionen utför marknadsavgränsningen med hjälp av empiriskt baserade uppgifter, men även med kvalitativa resonemang. Marknadsavgränsningen är inte slutet på bedömningen, men det är grunden för den. En osann marknadsdefinition leder till en osäker tillämpning av artikel 102. Det finns många aspekter som gör en marknadsavgränsning opålitlig. Att definiera en marknad är mer av en konst än en vetenskap. För att påvisa marknadsdefinitionens vikt i bedömningen beskriver jag vad som gäller i scenarion då missbruk och dominans sker på separata marknader, det komplicerar bedömningen då det krävs mer en än marknadsdefinition och ett samspel mellan marknaderna. För att situationen skall falla under artikel 102’s tillämpning krävs det att det föreligger en koppling mellan den dominerande ställningen och missbruket. Då det sker på samma marknad är kopplingen uppenbar, även då det sker på en närliggande marknad för att stärka den dominanta ställningen. Men då missbruket sker på en helt separat marknad, krävs det en förekomst av så kallade “associative links” vilket kopplar ihop marknaderna och skapar en koppling mellan dominansen och missbruks effekten. Den synergi effekt som oftast uppstår i dessa situationer, är inte i sig olaglig i sig, utan det är den konkurrenshämmande handlingen som framkallar en konkurrenshämmande effekt som artikel 102 är tillämplig på. Jag analyserar sen marknadsavgränsningen i ett fall, där missbruk och dominans förelåg på två olika marknader, Microsoft fallet. Jag finner till slut att en stor anledning till varför marknadsavgränsningen är osäker i dag, är domstolens ovilja att granska de ekonomiska och tekniska avancerade aspekterna. Det är fortfarande så att den som vinner marknaden, vinner målet och kommissionen vinner alltid marknaden. (Less)
- Abstract
- When applying competition law within Europe, the first stage of the assessment is to define the relevant market. The relevant market is the field of the review, and is not an end in it self. The relevant market contains the information that the assessment is based on. There is a great importance in the assessment of the market, sometimes it is stated that the one who wins the market, wins the case. The relevant market includes every product and service that is substitutable for the assessed entities own product. The market definition is even more essential in cases concerning article 102, which regulates abuse of a dominant position. When assessing dominance a market must be outlined, without the market definition it is impossible to... (More)
- When applying competition law within Europe, the first stage of the assessment is to define the relevant market. The relevant market is the field of the review, and is not an end in it self. The relevant market contains the information that the assessment is based on. There is a great importance in the assessment of the market, sometimes it is stated that the one who wins the market, wins the case. The relevant market includes every product and service that is substitutable for the assessed entities own product. The market definition is even more essential in cases concerning article 102, which regulates abuse of a dominant position. When assessing dominance a market must be outlined, without the market definition it is impossible to assess whether or not a dominant entity has abused his market power. When delimitating the market, the Commission usually use the hypothetical monopolist test. The basis of this test is that by implementing a fictive price increase on the product supplied by the accused entity, the Commission can assess the realistic substitutes. This test measures the cross price elasticity on demand, and supply, for the reviewed product. There are some essential flaws in the definition of the relevant market. The test commonly used is by some commentators described as unscientific. The information of which the Commission bases their assessment is often uncertain and sometimes not empirically based. The Commission usually supplements their assessment in these cases with subjective evidence and qualitative based reasoning. This resulted in commentators stating that the definition of the market is more of an art then a science. To shows the importance of the market definition, I explain situations where dominance and abuse lies on neighbouring markets. We can affirm that for article 102 to be applicable, there must exist a link between the dominance and the effect of the abuse. In situations where the abuse doesn’t take place on the same market as the dominance, or is somehow strengthening the dominance, then this link is not natural. Therefore it must exist so called associative links between the two markets, which are defined by the Commission. If the links exist, the article 102 is applicable. I analyze this with the help of the Microsoft case, which is a prime example of associative links. I here find that the Commission applies their market definition which in all objectivity is quite weak. The court of justice, do not evaluate their definition and allows the Commission to make a discretionary assessment concerning the economic and technically advanced parts. This combined with the uncertainty of a market definition results in entities not getting a fair trial. Which means that the one who wins the market, wins the case, and the Commission always win the market. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3803312
- author
- Lindholm Gantoft, Björn LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Dubious Dominance - A review of the market definition and the meaning of leveraging abuse
- course
- JURM02 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Competition law, konkurrensrätt, marknadsrätt, relevant market, relevant marknad, marknadsdefinition, avgränsning, market definition, article 102, artikel 102, dominerande ställning, abuse of dominant position, leveraging, hävstångseffekt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3803312
- date added to LUP
- 2013-07-23 09:14:24
- date last changed
- 2013-07-23 09:14:24
@misc{3803312,
abstract = {{When applying competition law within Europe, the first stage of the assessment is to define the relevant market. The relevant market is the field of the review, and is not an end in it self. The relevant market contains the information that the assessment is based on. There is a great importance in the assessment of the market, sometimes it is stated that the one who wins the market, wins the case. The relevant market includes every product and service that is substitutable for the assessed entities own product. The market definition is even more essential in cases concerning article 102, which regulates abuse of a dominant position. When assessing dominance a market must be outlined, without the market definition it is impossible to assess whether or not a dominant entity has abused his market power. When delimitating the market, the Commission usually use the hypothetical monopolist test. The basis of this test is that by implementing a fictive price increase on the product supplied by the accused entity, the Commission can assess the realistic substitutes. This test measures the cross price elasticity on demand, and supply, for the reviewed product. There are some essential flaws in the definition of the relevant market. The test commonly used is by some commentators described as unscientific. The information of which the Commission bases their assessment is often uncertain and sometimes not empirically based. The Commission usually supplements their assessment in these cases with subjective evidence and qualitative based reasoning. This resulted in commentators stating that the definition of the market is more of an art then a science. To shows the importance of the market definition, I explain situations where dominance and abuse lies on neighbouring markets. We can affirm that for article 102 to be applicable, there must exist a link between the dominance and the effect of the abuse. In situations where the abuse doesn’t take place on the same market as the dominance, or is somehow strengthening the dominance, then this link is not natural. Therefore it must exist so called associative links between the two markets, which are defined by the Commission. If the links exist, the article 102 is applicable. I analyze this with the help of the Microsoft case, which is a prime example of associative links. I here find that the Commission applies their market definition which in all objectivity is quite weak. The court of justice, do not evaluate their definition and allows the Commission to make a discretionary assessment concerning the economic and technically advanced parts. This combined with the uncertainty of a market definition results in entities not getting a fair trial. Which means that the one who wins the market, wins the case, and the Commission always win the market.}},
author = {{Lindholm Gantoft, Björn}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Dubiös dominans - En analys av marknadsdefinitionen och innebörden av hävstångseffekten}},
year = {{2013}},
}