IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Une nouvelle approche à l'égard des abus de monopolisation ?. Quelques commentaires à propos du document de travail de la Commission européenne relatif à l'application de l'article 82 aux abus de monopolisation

Listed author(s):
  • Alexandre Vandencasteele
  • Denis Waelbroeck
Registered author(s):

    In the context of the modernisation of the EC competition rules, the Commission published in December 2005 a « Discussion Paper » on the application of Article 82 EC to exclusionary abuses, calling for comments. This article considers the merits of the Discussion Paper and the scope for improvement. The principle emphasised in the Discussion Paper that an economic effects based approach should be taken to Article 82 EC is welcomed both for its realism and its greater coherency in relation to the approach taken under Article 81 EC and the merger regulation. The explicit recognition that competition law is there to protect consumers and not competitors and the adoption of an ‘as effective competitor’ test are also positive developments. Nonetheless, often in practice the Discussion Paper fails to translate this desire to reform into appropriate legal tests, often creating unjustified presumptions of dominance and abuse. In this regard, the possibility of presuming dominance on the basis of market shares alone, completely ignoring the dynamic nature of competition, appears particularly problematic. In the case of abuses, the Discussion Paper all too often creates presumptions based on irrelevant factors or conditions that are far too easily fulfilled (for example, the presumption of abuse in case of individualised quantitative rebates, even when these relate to an insignificant proportion of client requirements). Moreover, the defences are too rigid and narrowly defined, preventing economic efficiencies and commercial realities from being sufficiently taken into account. The wholesale transposal of the Article 81(3) EC test to Article 82 EC is particularly regrettable, given that the conditions of indispensibility and absence of elimination of competition appear not to fit in with an analysis of dominant companies’ behaviour. Although no rule is perfect, it must not be forgotten that false positives are just as damaging to competition as false negatives. Failure to take this into account will have the paradoxical effect that competition policy in Europe will chill competition rather than fostering it. Nonetheless, any shortcomings of the Discussion Paper do not detract from its merits. It can only be hoped that later drafts of the Discussion Paper and/or future guidelines build on this already solid base in the spirit of the reform : a fairer, more realistic and economic based approach to Article 82 EC.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: free

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: free

    Article provided by De Boeck Université in its journal Revue internationale de droit économique.

    Volume (Year): t. XX, 1 (2006)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 89-123

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:cai:riddbu:ride_201_0089
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cai:riddbu:ride_201_0089. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.