Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 April 2012

Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission

Appeal — Competition — Dominant position — Abuse — Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates

Case C‑549/10 P



Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex Autres Liens
Judgment (OJ)
25/05/2012 Tomra and Others v Commission
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2012:221
19/04/2012 Tomra and Others v Commission
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2012:221
19/04/2012 Tomra and Others v Commission
Application (OJ)
26/02/2011 Tomra and Others v Commission
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2012:55
02/02/2012 Tomra and Others v Commission
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T155/06 Tomra Systeme ASA and Others v European Commission by which that court dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 March 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.113 – Prokent/Tomra) imposing a fine of EUR 24 million on the appellants for abusing their dominant position by engaging in practices involving exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates in order to prevent or delay the entry of other manufacturers on the market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or substantial reduction of the fine.

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.03 Fines imposed by the Commission
        4.08.03.03.04 Fines for infringement of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU (Articles 81 EC and 82 EC)
          4.08.03.03.04.00 General


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

Operative part

Opinion


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 18/11/2010

Date of the Opinion

  • 02/02/2012

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

19/04/2012


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 63 from 26.02.2011, p.18

Judgment: OJ C 165 from 09.06.2012, p.6

Name of the parties

Tomra and Others v Commission

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Idot, Laurence: Abus de position dominante, Europe 2012 Juin Comm. nº 6 p.249 (FR)
  2. Simon, Stephan ; Zaloguin, Ivan: Das Tomra-Urteil des EuGH - Neues zu Ausschließlichkeitsbindungen unter 102 AEUV?, ÖZK aktuell : Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht 2012 p.115-120 (DE)
  3. Sibony, Anne-Lise: Accords d’exclusivité - Rabais fidélisant : La CJUE précise la pertinence de l’intention pour la qualification d’abus de position dominante (Tomra), Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2012 nº 3 p.101-104 (FR)
  4. Van Osch, P.J.H.M.: Terug naar de vorm? Een blik op Tomra, Markt & Mededinging 2012 p.161-164 (NL)
  5. Idot, Laurence: La Cour de justice précise sa position sur les contrats d'exclusivité et les rabais de fidélité pratiqués par une entreprise en position dominante, Revue des contrats 2012 p.852-855 (FR)
  6. Fanoy, J.W.: Het Tomra-arrest: kortingen en de "effects based approach"; (vooralsnog) geen gelukkig huwelijk, Actualiteiten mededingingsrecht 2012 p.172-181 (NL)
  7. Bien, Florian ; Rummel, Per: Ende des More Economic Approach bei der Beurteilung von Rabattsystemen?, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2012 p.737-740 (DE)
  8. Relange, Mathieul: Des subtilités de la technique du pourvoi, Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2012 nº 32 p.91-92 (FR)
  9. Braeken, B.J.H.: De beoordeling van kortingen en exclusiviteitsovereenkomsten bij dominante ondernemingen: (nog) geen fundamentele koerswijziging, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2012 p.308-313 (NL)
  10. Robin, Catherine: Rabais abusifs, Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2012 nº 37 p.22 (FR)
  11. Robin, Catherine: Rabais abusifs. Il n’est pas nécessaire de comparer les prix pratiqués et les coûts supportés par Tomra pour qualifier un système de rabais d’abus de position dominante., Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2012 nº 33 p.22 (FR)
  12. Pollard, Marcus ; Rende Granata, Rosario Maria: The Animals Lurking in the Undergrowth - Derogations under the EU Merger Regulation, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2013 Vol. 4 nº 1 p.52-55 (EN)
  13. Frenz, Walter: Marktabgrenzung, Leistungssubstitution und Kreuzpreiselastizität, Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 2013 p.285-287 (DE)
  14. Marty, Frédéric: Éviction abusive - Remise de fidélité - Dénigrement - Opérateur historique : L'Autorité de la concurrence sanctionne l'opérateur historique en matière de télédiffusion par voie hertzienne à hauteur de 20.6 millions d'euros pour des pratiques d'éviction anticoncurrentielles durant le déploiement de la TNT passant par des stratégies de dénigrement et la mise en oeuvre de rabais de fidélité, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2016 nº 3 p.79-82 (FR)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Competition
  • - Dominant position

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Actions for annulment
  • Appeals : dismissal on substantive grounds
  • Appeals : dismissal on grounds of inadmissibility

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Silva de Lapuerta

Advocate General

Mazák

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • English