Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:246
Date: 1999-10-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Dominant position
Concepts: Definition of abuse;Examples of abuse;Definition;General;Hearing of persons concerned and of third parties / Access to the file;Criteria for establishing the existence of a dominant position
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Ireland

Summary Facts II - 2 Procedure II - 3 Forms of order sought II - 4 Principal forms of order sought II - 4 1. The existence of a joint dominant position of the applicant and SDL II - 4 The argument that the operative part of the contested decision is incomplete and contradictory II - 5 Alteration of the intrinsic nature of the infringements attributed to the applicant II - 9 The finding of a joint dominant position II - 10 2. The existence of a dominant position of the applicant in the industrial sugar market II - 20 The alleged lack of independence of the applicant in relation to its competitors II - 21 The alleged lack of independence of the applicant in relation to customers II - 25 3. The abuses by the applicant of its dominant position in the industrial and retail sugar markets II - 28 Practices in relation to the applicant's pricing II - 30 The industrial sugar market II - 30 - Application of selectively low prices to potential customers of ASI II - 30 - PFAs II - 31 - Price discrimination against competing sugar packers II - 37 The retail sugar market II - 43 - Border rebates II - 43 - Fidelity rebate II - 48 - Target rebates and selective pricing II - 50 The product swaps on the retail sugar market II - 56 The forms of order sought in the alternative II - 58 1. The first plea, alleging infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 II - 58 The plea that the fine is excessive II - 58 The alleged penalisation of infringements not properly established II - 62 The implementation by the applicant of a sustained and comprehensive policy of abuse from 1985 II - 64 The Commission's lack of diligence in dealing with the case II - 65 The novelty of the concept of the abuse of a joint dominant position II - 68 2. The second plea, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 17 II - 69 1: Language of the case: English. ECR 2: - Confidential information removed.