Short Reads

Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position

Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as

Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position

02.10.2017 NL law

On 14 September 2017, the European Court of Justice answered preliminary questions from the Latvian Supreme Court. The Latvian Court sought guidance on how to establish whether the fees charged by a collective rights management organisation (CMO) are excessive and therefore constitute abuse of a dominant position in the sense of Article 102 TFEU. The Court of Justice confirmed that comparing the prices with those applied in other Member States, is an appropriate method to establish whether Article 102 TFEU has been infringed.

If the difference observed is significant and persists for a certain period of time, it may be qualified as appreciable, which in turn is an indication of abuse of dominance.

The Latvian competition authority had investigated the royalty fees charged by the Latvian CMO to shops and service centres. CMOs manage copyrights in musical works on a collective basis, which includes the granting of licences to users as well as collection of royalties. In many Member States, including Latvia, CMOs are monopolists.

Firstly, the Court of Justice explicitly confirmed that trade between Member States may be affected by the level of fees charged by a CMO which holds a monopoly and also manages the rights of foreign copyright holders. Article 102 TFEU is therefore applicable in these situations.

Secondly, the Court of Justice confirmed that the method based on a comparison of fees applied by comparable CMOs in other Member States is a valid method to determine whether the price charged by a CMO is excessive. The Court clarified that for such a comparison, it is not necessary for the competition authority to include all Member States as long as the reference Member States "are selected in accordance with objective, appropriate and verifiable criteria". The Court added that these criteria may include, among other things, economic and socio-cultural factors such as gross domestic product per capita and cultural heritage. In addition, the Court noted that there are siginicant differences in price levels for identical services between Member States, as expressed in the purchasing power parity (PPP) index. Consequently, the Court of Justice ruled that when comparing prices for identical services in Member States with different living standards, the PPP index must be taken into account.

Thirdly, the Court of Justice confirmed that there is no minimum threshold above which a fee must be regarded as "appreciably higher". However, the difference must be significant and persist for a certain length of time in order to be appreciable and therefore indicative of an abuse. In this specific case, the fees charged by the Latvian CMO were twice as high as those charged in the reference Member States and 50-100% higher than the EU-wide average. The fees were introduced about two years before the Latvian authority fined the CMO.

Next, the Court of Justice noted that even when it is established that there is an appreciable difference, it may be possible for a CMO to justify its prices and show that they are fair by reference to objective factors that have an impact on management expenses or the remuneration of rightholders.

While the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice in this case addresses questions that are very specific to the area of royalty fees charged by CMOs for use of copyrighted music, they may also be relevant for assessing excessive pricing in other industries.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of October 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court
  2. Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  3. Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"
  4. Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017
  5. District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

Team

Related news

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more