Indispensability and Abuse of Dominance: From Commercial Solvents to Slovak Telekom and Google Shopping
Forthcoming, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
47 Pages Posted: 16 Dec 2019 Last revised: 9 Jan 2020
Date Written: December 11, 2019
Evidence that an input or platform is indispensable is sometimes required to establish an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU; the circumstances in which this condition is required are not clear.
A systematic analysis of the case law suggests that indispensability is required where intervention (i) would be structural and/or (ii) would amount to prescribing the terms and conditions of access to an input or platform (‘proactive intervention’).
The analysis of the case law is useful to shed light on the controversies around recent cases, such as Google Shopping and Slovak Telekom, and ongoing investigations by the European Commission.
Keywords: Article 102 TFEU; indispensability; essential facilities; tying; input; platform; access; remedies; self-preferencing; digital
JEL Classification: K21, L14, L24, L41, L42
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation