According to the CJEU, the abuse of a dominant position pursuant to Article 102 of TFEU is triggered when an undertaking exploits its own resources or assets in order to use its position of strength on the market to prevent or hinder competition.
In this respect, the CJEU has laid down the following criteria:
- in order to establish whether a given conduct amounts to an abuse of dominant position, it is sufficient to prove that it is capable of affecting competition on the relevant market or consumers’ welfare;
- proof of lack of restrictive effects is not per se sufficient to exclude the abusive character of a conduct;
- a market practice considered lawful may amount to be abusive if carried out by a dominant undertaking, it produces exclusionary effects and involves means other than those considered normally competitive on the relevant market;
- when a dominant position is abused by one or more subsidiaries, the same existence of a group of companies is sufficient to hold the parent company equally liable for the abuse. Indeed, liability is presumed if, during the contested period, almost the whole stock capital of the subsidiaries is owned, directly or indirectly, by the parent company. The latter can be exonerated only if it proves to have no control over its subsidiaries’ conduct and decisions, which were taken autonomously.
CJEU, Sec. V, decision of 12 May 2022, Case C-377/20