Reports of Cases

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

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• EC Treaty (Maastricht), Article 82 : paragraphs 1, 20, 26, 27, 38, 4750, 51, 56 - 58, 62, 63, 67, 74
• EC Treaty (Maastricht), Article 82 -LC : paragraph 37
• Commission - Other Acts - 52009XC0224(01) -PT24 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 -N511 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N123 : paragraphs 70, 72
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N41 : paragraph 40
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N70 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N71 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N81 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N86 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N91 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N70 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N71 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N72 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N73 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N66 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N67 : paragraph 29
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N68 : paragraph 31
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N69 : paragraph 31
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N73 : paragraph 33
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N75 : paragraph 40
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N86 : paragraph 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 -N107 : paragraphs 55, 70
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 -N108 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N40 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N41 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N42 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N43 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N44 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N45 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N46 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N64 : paragraph 66
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N76 : paragraph 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N21 : paragraph 70
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N23 : paragraph 71
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N28 : paragraphs 54, 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N29 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N30 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N31 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N32 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N33 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N34 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N35 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N42 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N44 : paragraph 69
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N70 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N71 : paragraph 29
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N72 : paragraph 42
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N73 : paragraph 56
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N80 : paragraph 56

Operative part

• Interprets : EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82 : points 1, 5, 16 - 96
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82 -L2LC : points 29, 40
  
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 49 -P3 : point 85
  
• TFEU, Article 102 : points 1, 5, 20, 59
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A23P3 : point 85
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -C5 : point 77
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52009XC0224(01) : points 16, 58, 59, 66
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52009XC0224(01) -PT3 : point 60
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52009XC0224(01) -PT23 : point 59
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52009XC0224(01) -PT24 : point 73
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52009XC0224(01) -PT25 : point 66
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 : point 1
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 -N511 : point 52
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 -N518 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 : point 1
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N123 : points 73, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N41 : point 46
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N89 : points 28, 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N90 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N91 : points 24, 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 : point 1
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N57 : points 24, 84
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N70 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N71 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N73 : points 29, 31, 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N81 : points 36, 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N82 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N85 : point 32
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N69 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N70 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N71 : point 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 -N72 : point 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -333/94 -N44 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -395/96 -N131 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -395/96 -N132 : point 46
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -163/99 -N50 : points 28, 29
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 : point 1
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 -N239 : points 81, 82
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 -N56 : point 28
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 -N57 : point 28
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 -N58 : point 28
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 -N59 : point 28
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 -N60 : points 29, 31, 35
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 -N65 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -95/04 : points 44, 80
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 : point 1
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N66 : point 73
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N67 : points 29, 31, 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N68 : points 29, 59, 82
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N69 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N73 : points 36, 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 -N75 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -550/07 -N169 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 -N105 : points 24, 73, 84
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 -N106 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/08 : point 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/08 -N176 : points 24, 73, 84
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/08 -N177 : points 25, 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/08 -N254 : point 80
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/08 -N83 : point 73
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N24 : points 24, 84
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N27 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N45 : point 71
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N64 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N66 : point 80
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N67 : points 62, 80
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N73 : point 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 -N94 : point 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/09 -N21 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -17/10 -N118 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -109/10 : point 69
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N20 : point 73
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N23 : points 42, 73
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N25 : points 25, 62, 63, 88
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/10 -N44 : points 81, 82
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 : points 1, 36, 37, 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N17 : points 24, 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N18 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N23 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N42 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N46 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N48 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N68 : points 59, 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N70 : points 28, 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N71 : points 31, 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N73 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N79 : points 59, 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N80 : point 64
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -226/11 -N29 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -226/11 -N31 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -557/12 -N29 : point 77
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 16/01/2014

Date of the Opinion

• 21/05/2015

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

06/10/2015

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 389 from 23.11.2015, p.4

Application: OJ C 78 from 15.03.2014, p.5

Name of the parties

Post Danmark

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Hampton, Celia: The postman rings once, Competition Law Insight 2015 Vol. 14 Issue 9 p.1 (EN)
2. Niels, Gunnar: Luxemburg in vorm, Handelingen der Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging 2015 p.203-204 (NL)
3. Musil, Ales: Post Danmark II Preliminary Ruling – and Rebates‘ Saga Continues…, Antitrust 2015 p.85-86 (EN)
4. Goffinet, Pierre: The judgment of the General Court in the Intel case and the opinion of the Advocate General in the Post Danmark case: a reconsideration of the policy of the European Commision?, ÖZK aktuell : Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht 2015 p.127-139 (EN)
5. Innerhofer, Isabelle ; Raab, Christoph: EuGH: "Post Danmark II" - Rabattsysteme von Marktbeherrschern bleiben ein Balanceakt, ÖZK aktuell : Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht 2015 p.213-219 (DE)
6. Lundqvist, Björn: Post Danmark II, now concluded by the ECJ: clarification of the rebate abuse, but how do we marry Post Danmark I with Post Danmark II?, European Competition Journal 2015 p.557-573 (EN)
7. Schreiber, Kristina: EuGH: Missbräuchliche Rabattsysteme nach "Post Danmark II", Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht PRAX 2015 Heft 23 p.520 (DE)
8. Idot, Laurence: Rabais et abus de position dominante, Europe 2015 Décembre Comm. nº 12 p.39-40 (FR)
9. Seitz, Claudia: Kartellrecht: Missbrauch einer beherrschenden Stellung durch Rabattsysteme, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2015 Heft 24 p.958-966 (DE)
10. Robberecht, Emmanuel: Concurrence - abus de position dominante, Revue du droit de l'Union européenne 2015 nº 4 p.680-686 (FR)
11. Bodenstein, Ines: Intel und Post Danmark II – Die Weichen für die zukünftige Bewertung von Rabatten nach Art. 102 AEUV sind so gut wie gestellt!, Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht 2015 p.403-420 (DE)
12. Kreijger, P.J.: Post Danmark II - a bit less confused, at a hiher level, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2016 p.10-17 (NL)
13. Visser, M.: 100. Post Danmark II - Daar gaan we weer..., Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk 2016 p.18-21 (NL)
14. Ibáñez Colomo, Pablo: Post Danmark II: The Emergence of a Distinct ‘Effects-Based’ Approach to Article 102 TFEU, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2016 Vol. 7 nº 2 p.113-115 (EN)
15. Chan, Sunny S.H. : Post Danmark II: Per se unlawfulness of retroactive rebates granted by dominant undertakings, European Competition Law Review 2016 p.43-50 (EN)
16. Rokita, Krzysztof: Rabaty ustandaryzowane, test równie efektywnego konkurenta oraz zasada de minimis w ramach art. 102 TFUE - glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 6.10.2015 r. w sprawie C-23/14 Post Danmark A/S przeciwko Konkurrencerådet, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2016 Vol. 3 p.35-42 (PL)
17. Venit, James S.: Making Sense of Post Danmark I and II: Keeping the Hell Fires Well Stoked and Burning, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2016 Vol. 7 nº 3 p.165-179 (EN)
18. Rummel, Per: Rebate schemes under Article 102 TFEU: Post Danmark II, Common Market Law Review 2016, Volume 53, Issue 4, p. 1121-1132 (EN)
19. Marty, Frédéric ; Sibony, Anne-Lise: Abus-exclusion - Rabais fidélisant - Critère du concurrent aussi efficace : La Cour de justice de l'Union européenne refuse de rendre juridiquement obligatoire le critère du concurrent aussi efficace pour l'appréciation des rabais fidélisants, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2016 nº 1 p.94-98 (FR)
20. Behrens, Peter: Kontinuität versus Zeitgeist: Zur Auslegung des Missbrauchsbegriffs des Art. 102 AEUV im Licht seiner Interpretationsgeschichte, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2016 p.41-42 (DE)
21. Weiss, Volker ; Solek, Lukas: Rabattsysteme dritter Kategorie nach Post Danmark II, Ecolex 2016 p.230-233 (DE)
22. Hajná, Zuzana: Aktuální praxe posuzování věrnostních rabatů, Antitrust 2016 p.83-88 (CS)
23. Haus, Florian C.: The Postman Always Rings Twice, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2016 p.7-11 (DE)
24. Hieber, Thomas ; Cetintas, Gökhan: Same, same, but different? Das Urteil des EuGH in Sachen Post Danmark II zu Rabattsystemen marktbeherrschender Unternehmen, Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 2016 p.220-225 (DE)
25. Wiethaus, Lars: Price-cost analysis of retroactive rebates: One clarification and three propositions in line with Post Danmark II, Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 2016 p.310-315 (DE)
26. Ibáñez Colomo, Pablo: Appreciability and De Minimis in Article 102 TFEU, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2016 Vol. 7 nº 9 p.651-660 (EN)
27. Bodenstein, Ines: Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung durch rückwirkende Rabatte, IWRZ – Zeitschrift für internationales Wirtschaftsrecht 2016 p.78-80 (DE)
28. Goffinet, Pierre: The judgment of the General Court in the Intel case and the opinion of the Advocate General in the Post Danmark case: a reconsideration of the policy of the European Commission?, ÖZK aktuell : Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht 2016 p.123-137 (EN)
29. Ridyard, Derek: Calibration and consistency in Article 102 : Effects-based enforcement after the Intel and Post Danmark judgments, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2016 nº 3 p.28-38 (EN)
30. 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)
31. Marty, Frédéric: Éviction abusive - Opérateur historique - Prix d'éviction - Mesures conservatoires : L'Autorité de la concurrence prononce des mesures conservatoires pour prévenir un éventuel effet d'éviction liées aux pratiques tarifaires de l'opérateur historique du secteur gazier, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2016 nº 3 p.82-84 (FR)
32. Bosco, David: XII. Ententes, abus de position dominante et concentrations - Cour de justice, 2e ch., 6 octobre 2015, Post Danmark A/S c/ Konkurrencerådet., aff. C-23/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:651, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2015. Décisions et commentaires (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2016, p. 510-513 (FR)
33. Bernard, Luka: Presoja ravnanj podjetja s prevladujočim položajem po učinku: reforma Evropske komisije in njena (delna) recepcija v sodni praksi EU, Podjetje in delo 2016 nº 598 p.598-624 (SL)
34. Bruyant-Langer, Amanda ; Wernblad, Tobias Jakob: Den lange vej til Post Danmark II - Dominerende virksomheders brug af rabatsystemer, Justitia 2018 nº 1 p.53-125 (DA)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Sø- og Handelsretten - Denmark

Subject-matter

• Competition
  
• - Dominant position
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Konkurrenceloven, § 11

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

Information not available

Judge-Rapporteur

da Cruz Vilaça

Advocate General

Information not available

Language(s) of the Case

• Danish
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

Information not available