WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Commission power over abuse of a dominant position.
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, dominant position, intra-EU trade, national law

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/167

(2001/C 151 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Commission power over abuse of a dominant position

(7 November 2000)

What powers does the Commission have, if it becomes aware of a dominant position in a market, to
reintroduce competitive features into the market? Will the Commission please describe the powers to order
a break-up of dominant businesses under United States law, and state whether it is in favour of introducing
similar powers into EU competition policy? If it is not in favour, what features of the EU make such
powers unnecessary compared to the US?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

In Community competition law the conduct of dominant firms is regulated by Article 82 (ex Article 86) of
the EC Treaty. Article 82 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. It does not as such prohibit
dominance. The Commission has no power under Article 82 to intervene against a lack of competition,
which is due purely to the existence of a dominant position.

The Commission has the power to prohibit abuse of a dominant position and accordingly to require the
dominant firm to bring the abuse to an end. To that effect the Commission may impose on the dominant
firm an obligation to take positive actions. The obligations imposed may include remedies of a structural
nature in case such a remedy is necessary in order to bring the infringement effectively to an end. It
follows from the principle of proportionality that any remedy must not exceed what is necessary to end
the infringement.

In the exercise of its powers the Commission has, for example, required a dominant firm to divest a
minority shareholding in a competing undertaking, which allowed the dominant firm to gain influence
over the commercial policy of a competitor and thereby to strengthen its dominant position.

Section 2 of the American Sherman Act prohibits monopolisation of a market and any attempts to do so.
Like Article 82, Section 2 does not as such prohibit dominance. It prohibits the creation and maintenance
of monopoly power by anti-competitive means. The remedies that can be imposed by the courts in
monopolisation cases include divestiture, provided that such a remedy is required to end the violation. In
some cases divestiture can amount to breaking up a dominant firm.

(2001/C 151 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/00

by Manuel PØrez `lvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Safety at sea

Following the accident which befell the Galician vessel, the (cid:145)Arosa(cid:146), on 3 October 2000 in the Great Sole
fishing grounds off the Irish coast, in which 12 people lost their lives, does the Commission plan to
introduce a programme of any kind to combat accidents at sea, be they accidents at work in the strict
sense or accidents resulting in the loss of human life in a shipwreck? Will an awareness raising campaign
of any kind be adopted forthwith and introduced in the short term with a view to improving the safety of
workers at sea?