CELEX: E2001P0008
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-05 00:00:00
Title: Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v Vectura AS (Case E-8/01)

Important legal notice

|

E2001P0008

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v Vectura AS (Case E-8/01)  

Official Journal C 081 , 04/04/2002 P. 0020 - 0020 Official Journal 134 , 06/06/2002 P. 0005 - 0005

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v. Vectura AS(Case E-8/01)(2002/C 134/06)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 11 October 2001 of Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 November 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v. Vectura AS, on the following questions:1. Will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market, in itself be sufficient for a finding that an undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market in itself create a presumption that an undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?3. If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, and an undertaking has such a market share, what other market conditions in the relevant market might imply that the undertaking nonetheless does not have a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?4. If a dominant undertaking provides marketing support to some customers and not to others, could that constitute abuse under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, if that marketing support:(i) must be viewed in its entirety as being a price discount for the dominant undertaking's performance of distribution services for the customers in question?(ii) must be viewed in its entirety as being compensation for marketing services which the customers in question provide to the undertaking?(iii) must be viewed partially as being compensation for marketing services which the customers in question provide to the undertaking, and partially as a price discount for the dominant undertaking's performance of distribution services for the customers in question?5. If a dominant undertaking has unjustifiably treated its customers differently, could a finding of infringement of Article 54 of the European Economic Agreement be made, without a concurrent finding that the differential treatment has impaired competition in the market in which the customers compete?