Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:290
Date: 2000-12-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Dominant position
Concepts: Definition of abuse;Public undertakings;Competition rules;Definition of undertaking;Definition;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Transport — Rules on competition — Air transport — Regulation 
No 3975/87 — Scope — Activities directly relating to the provision of air transport 
services — Included — Airport management activity — Excluded 
(Council Regulations Nos 17, 141 and 3975/87) 
2. Competition — Community rules — Undertaking — Concept — Public corpora­
tion managing airport facilities on publicly-owned property 
(EC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86 (now Arts 81 EC and 82 EC» 
II - 3929 
SUMMARY — CASE T-12 8/9 8 
3. Competition — Dominant position — Concept — Dominant position facilitated by 
laws or regulations 
(EC Treaty, Art. 86 (now Art. 82 EC)) 
4. Competition — Dominant position — Conduct on the dominated market having 
effects on a closely related market — Application of Article 86 of the Treaty (now 
Article 82 EC) — Conditions 
(EC Treaty, Art. 86 (now Art. 82 EC)) 
5. Competition — Dominant position — Abuse — Concept — Absence of fault 
(EC Treaty, Art. 86 (now Art. 82 EC)) 
6. Competition — Undertakings responsible for the management of services in the 
general economic interest — Subjection to the rules of the Treaty — Derogation — 
Strict interpretation — Cumulative conditions 
(EC Treaty, Art. 90(2) (now Art. 86(2) EC)) 
1. Regulation No 3975/87 laying down 
the procedure for the application of the 
rules on competition to undertakings in 
the air transport sector, which is spe­
cific in nature, applies only to activities 
directly relating to the supply of air 
transport services. Activities that do 
not directly relate to such services fall 
within the scope of Regulation No 17, 
which is general in nature. 
In that regard, airport management 
activities which do not consist in pro­
viding groundhandling services but are 
situated in the market upstream of that 
activity, namely the provision to sup­
pliers of groundhandling services of 
airport infrastructures and manage­
ment services, have only an indirect 
link with air transport, since they 
constitute neither transport services 
nor even activities directly relating to 
the supply of air transport services. 
(see paras 43, 46) 
2. Under Community competition law, 
the concept of an undertaking covers 
any entity engaged in an economic 
activity, regardless of its legal status 
and the way in which it is financed, so 
that any activity consisting in offering 
goods and services on a given market is 
an economic activity. 
Furthermore, the Treaty provisions on 
competition are applicable to the activ­
ities of an entity which can be severed 
from those in which it engages as a 
II - 3930 
AÉROPORTS DE PARIS V COMMISSION 
public authority. It follows that the fact 
that a public corporation placed under 
the authority of the Minister and that it 
manages facilities in public ownership 
does not in itself mean that it cannot be 
regarded as an undertaking for the 
purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty 
(now Article 82 EC). 
The provision of airport facilities to 
airlines and the various service pro­
viders by a public corporation, in 
return for a fee at a rate freely fixed 
by the latter, and the management of 
those facilities are economic activities, 
and although those activities are car­
ried out on publicly-owned property, 
they do not for that reason form part of 
the exercise of a task conferred by 
public law. 
(see paras 107-109, 121-122, 125) 
3. The dominant position referred to in 
Article 86 of the Treaty (now Art­
icle 82 EC) relates to a position of 
economic strength enjoyed by an 
undertaking which enables it to prevent 
effective competition being maintained 
on the relevant market by giving it the 
power to behave to an appreciable 
extent independently of its compet­
itors, customers and ultimately of con­
sumers. The application of Article 86 is 
not precluded by the fact that the 
absence or restriction of competition 
is facilitated by laws and regulations. 
(see paras 147-148) 
4. An abuse of a dominant position on 
one market may be censured because of 
effects which it produces on another 
market. It is only in the different 
situation where the abuse is found on 
a market other than the dominated 
market that, according to Case 
C-333/94 P Tetra Pak v Commission, 
Article 86 of the Treaty (now Art­
icle 82 EC) is inapplicable except in 
special circumstances. 
Thus, where the undertaking in receipt 
of the service is on a separate market 
from that on which the person supply­
ing the service is present, the conditions 
for the applicability of Article 86 are 
satisfied provided that, owing to the 
dominant position occupied by the 
supplier, the recipient is in a situation 
of economic dependence vis-à-vis the 
latter, without their necessarily having 
to be present on the same market. It is 
sufficient if the service offered by the 
supplier is necessary to the exercise by 
the recipient of its own activity. 
(see paras 164-165) 
II - 3931 
SUMMARY — CASE T-128/98 
5. The concept of abuse is an objective 
concept relating to the behaviour of an 
undertaking in a dominant position 
which is such as to influence the 
structure of a market. Similarly, the 
strengthening of the position of an 
undertaking may be an abuse and 
prohibited under Article 86 of the 
Treaty (now Article 82 EC), regardless 
of the means and procedure by which it 
is achieved, and even irrespective of 
any fault. 
(see para. 170) 
6. The derogation set out in Article 90(2) 
of the Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC) 
from the rules on competition is to be 
given a strict interpretation and can 
apply only on the double condition, 
first, that the undertaking has been 
entrusted by the public authorities with 
the operation of a service of general 
economic interest and, second, that the 
application of the rules of the Treaty 
obstructs the performance of the part­
icular task assigned to that undertaking 
and that the interests of the Commun­
ity are not affected. 
(see para. 227) 
II - 3932