By Guilherme Oliveira e Costa
With two major decisions, March 2019 was an interesting month with regard to the Court of Justice’s (also ‘ECJ’) case-law on private enforcement of competition law: Skanska (C-724/17) and Cogeco (C-637/17). This post will comment on the judgment in Cogeco, whereas a previous post analysed the Skanska ruling.
Cogeco is, in fact, an unsurprising judgment, particularly regarding its conclusions. But the decision itself contains a lot of interesting points, and was preceded by a noteworthy Opinion of AG Kokott. Additionally, its importance must not be underestimated since it is the first preliminary ruling on Directive 2014/104/EU (‘Damages Directive’) and, as pointed out by AG Kokott, there are still several questions connected with this Directive which need clarification. Moreover, this ruling also shows a very clear example on how unsuitably some national legal systems (the Portuguese one in the case at hand) treated private enforcement before the harmonisation implemented by the Damages Directive. Continue reading
By Guilherme Oliveira e Costa
With two major decisions, March 2019 was an interesting month with regard to the ECJ’s case-law on the private enforcement of competition law: Skanska (C-724/17) and Cogeco (C-637/17). This post will comment on the judgment in Skanska, whereas a later post will analyse Cogeco.
Skanska is a challenging judgement that confirms that the competition enforcement system must be viewed as a coherent system where both public and private enforcement play a crucial and complementary role, which is demonstrated by the application of the principle of economic continuity to private enforcement. Moreover, it addresses one of the several issues that has not yet been harmonised regarding private enforcement: the responsibility for damages in private enforcement legal procedures. As such, Skanska may be a leading case in a private enforcement’s possible second stage of development in the aftermath of Directive 2014/104/EU. Continue reading
In a grand chamber judgment in case C‑209/10, Post Danmark, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of abuse of a dominant position (Art. 102 TFEU). The case was referred to the ECJ by a Danish judge in a dispute between Post Danmark and Konkurrencerådet, the Danish competition authority.
I have three remarks concerning this judgment:
- first, it seems to me that the ECJ does not embrace the average incremental costs instead of average variable costs as the relevant economic parameter for analysing a per se abuse;
- secondly, the ECJ requires the Danish judge to apply the as-efficient-competitor-test and seems to take it further than a mere price/cost-test to decide on the question whether the pricing practices of Post Danmark were anti-competitive in effect; he must take into account all relevant circumstances;
- lastly, when the Danish judge takes into account all those circumstances, it seems that the ECJ prescribes an ex nunc appreciation, which might be a restriction of procedural autonomy.
In the Danish market for the distribution of unaddressed mail (direct mail of brochures, guides, newspapers, etc.) the two largest players are Post Danmark and Forbruger-Kontakt (FK). This market is fully liberalised. Next to that, Post Danmark is the universal postal service provider. It uses its distribution network for both the universal postal service and the distribution of unaddressed mail. In 2003, in the Danish market for the distribution of unaddressed mail Post Danmark had a market share of 44 % which increased to 55 % in 2004. According to the Danish competition authority Post Danmark held a dominant position in that market because of such high market shares and because it could maintain its distribution network covering the whole country because of it being the universal postal service provider, regardless of its activities on the market for unaddressed mail.