GCLC - Restriction of Competition and Exclusionary Abuse Under Article 102 – The Solution

15 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2016

See all articles by John Temple Lang

John Temple Lang

University of Dublin - Trinity College; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Date Written: January 12, 2016


A clear concept of restriction of competition is needed for a definition of exclusionary or anti-competitive abuse. The Post Danmark II judgment has not provided this, and neither did the Commission’s Guidance paper. Discussion of an “effects-based” approach is not useful without a way of distinguishing between legitimate and anticompetitive “effects”. The results of the retroactive rebates cases could all be explained by saying that the rebates were only one of the many ways that the companies used to obtain de facto exclusivity. That would mean that retroactive rebates in themselves are not necessarily illegal, which seems correct (and which seems to follow from the Post Danmark II judgment). A less well known series of judgments shows that Article 102(b) prohibits conduct limiting the production, markets or technical development of competitors of the dominant company, if harm to consumers results. This provides a valuable definition of restriction of competition and of exclusionary abuse. If it were considered to provide an exhaustive definition, the law would be greatly improved and clarified.

Suggested Citation

Temple Lang, John and Temple Lang, John, GCLC - Restriction of Competition and Exclusionary Abuse Under Article 102 – The Solution (January 12, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2736331 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2736331

John Temple Lang (Contact Author)

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP ( email )

Rue de la Loi 57
Brussels, 1040

University of Dublin - Trinity College ( email )

2-3 College Green
Dublin, Leinster D2

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics