MY ACCOUNTSUDDEN TERMINATION OF AN ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP
A change in delivery schedules between the parties cannot, where it is not of a significant nature, be construed as a partial breach of an established commercial relationship.
CA Paris, 11 October 2024, No 22/09688
The continuation, after the announcement of a partial termination, of relations for two years with sales equivalent to those of previous years, does not constitute an extension of the initial three-month notice period since subsequent exchanges took place in a different context.
CA Paris, 11 October 2024, No 22/09012
ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION
It is not sufficient for the undertaking in a dominant position to call into question the accuracy of one of the calculations made in the AEC (as efficient competitor) test in order to invalidate the Commission’s conclusion, based on such a test, relating to the capability of a loyalty rebate scheme to foreclose a competitor as efficient as that undertaking as the deficiency or error identified must also be capable of altering the result of the test, changing it from negative to positive, in such a way as to give rise to reasonable doubt as to the validity of the result adopted by the Commission and, therefore, as to the capability of the rebates concerned to foreclose a competitor as efficient as the undertaking in a dominant position as that type of doubt may arise due to calculation errors or due to selective or incomplete consideration of evidence.
CJEU, Case C-240/22 P Commission v Intel Corporation Inc., Judgment of 24 October 2024
While a competitor as efficient as the dominant undertaking must offer its products at a price that compensates for the loss of the conditional benefits granted by the dominant undertaking, that compensation does not necessarily have to take the form of a cash advantage equal to the value of the non-cash advantage for the customer concerned and may consist in a non-cash advantage equivalent to that which that customer will lose following its decision to obtain the contestable share from the competitor of the undertaking in a dominant position, it being irrelevant that that advantage may represent, in that case, a value that differs from the cost that the competitor as efficient as the undertaking in a dominant position had to incur in order to grant it to that customer.
CJEU, Case C-240/22 P Commission v Intel Corporation Inc., Judgment of 24 October 2024,
ACTION FOR ANNULMENT
Where the General Court finds that the criteria relied on by the Commission do not appear to be sufficient to establish an infringement of Article 102 TFEU, it does not have to investigate whether other elements of the judgment would not enable it to construct a reasoning tending to demonstrate the anticompetitive dispossession effect of the practice in question, since it does not have the power to amend the constituent elements of the infringement found by the author of the act whose legality it reviews under Article 263 TFEU, by substituting its own reasoning for that of the latter.
CJEU, Case C-240/22 P Commission v Intel Corporation Inc., Judgment of 24 October 2024,
