21

It is in that context that the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court) decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) If, in infringement proceedings, there is proof or evidence that an undertaking in a dominant position is applying discriminatory prices to a retail undertaking and that that is putting that undertaking at a disadvantage in relation to its competitors, is it necessary, in order for that conduct to be characterised as placing the undertaking at a competitive disadvantage, within the meaning of point (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, for the severity, the relevance or the significance of the effect on the undertaking’s competitive position and/or competitiveness to be assessed, in particular in so far as concerns its ability to absorb the difference in costs borne in connection with the wholesale offering? (2) If there is proof or evidence in infringement proceedings that the discriminatory prices charged by an undertaking in a dominant position are of significantly reduced importance for the costs incurred, income obtained and profitability achieved by the affected retail undertaking, is an assessment that there is no evidence of abuse of a dominant position and prohibited practices compatible with an interpretation consistent with subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU and the judgments of 15 March 2007, British Airways v Commission (C‑95/04 P, EU:C:2007:166), and of 9 September 2009, Clearstream v Commission (T‑301/04, EU:T:2009:317)? (3) Or, on the contrary, is such a circumstance insufficient to preclude the conduct in question from being characterised as abuse of a dominant position and a prohibited practice within the meaning of subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, that circumstance being of relevance only for the purposes of determining the degree of liability or punishment of the infringing undertaking? (4) The fact that, under subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, [the situation covered by that provision] has to be such as to place the trading partners at a “competitive disadvantage”, must that be interpreted to the effect that the advantage arising from the discrimination must equate to a minimum percentage of the costs structure of the undertaking concerned? (5) The fact that, under subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, [the situation covered by that provision] has to be such as to place the trading partners at a “competitive disadvantage”, must that be interpreted to the effect that the advantage arising from the discrimination must equate to a minimal amount of the difference between the average costs borne by the competing undertakings for the wholesale offering at issue? (6) The fact that, under subparagraph (c) of [the second paragraph of] Article 102 TFEU, [the situation covered by that provision] has to be such as to place the trading partners at a “competitive disadvantage”, can that be interpreted to the effect that the advantage arising from the discrimination must, in the context of the market and the service in question, equate to values higher than the differences indicated in Tables 5 to 7 [referred to in this request for a preliminary ruling] in order for the conduct to be characterised as a prohibited practice? (7) If the answer to any of questions 4 to 6 is in the affirmative, how is such a minimum threshold of significance of the disadvantage in relation to the costs structure or the average costs borne by the competing undertakings in the retail market in question to be determined? (8) If such a minimum threshold has been defined, does the fact that it has not been reached every year rebut the presumption in the judgment, [of 9 September 2009, Clearstream v Commission (T‑301/04, EU:T:2009:317)], according to which it must be held that the application to a trading partner of different prices for equivalent services continuously over a period of five years and by an undertaking having a de facto monopoly on the upstream market could not fail to cause that partner a competitive disadvantage?’