Chillin'Competition

Events and discussions around Article 102 are mushrooming in anticipation of the Commission’s draft guidelines on exclusionary abuses, which will likely be subject to public consultation during the summer. Over the next few days I will be taking part in two of those, namely at a BIICL workshop (The future of Article 102 TFEU) in Brussels (today) and at the GCLC’s annual conference in Bruges (Article 102 TFEU- Past, Present, Future) on 1-2 March. (Future conference titles may need to get more creative).

One of the elements that makes Article 102 a most attractive topic for both academic debates and litigation is the uncertainty as to what the law is. Still today, debates in both academic fora and individual cases tend to focus on what the law is (e.g. what is competition on the merits? when do we need to show foreclosure? what is foreclosure? what is the role of the AEC principle? do we need to conduct a counterfactual analysis in 102 cases?, etc), as opposed to on how the law should apply to a specific set of facts/evidence. This is remarkable, and arguably in no one’s interest (unless you’re into lawyering or legal blogging); enforcers, courts and companies would all benefit from a stable and predictable legal framework.

Having spent the past few years debating Article 102 both within and outside Courts, I have come to realize that, contrary to appearances, there is much more common ground and scope for consensus on the applicable legal framework than meets the eye. Most of the discussions on these topics tend to be polluted by a desire to influence, justify, secure or revert the outcome of individual cases, but when one forgets for a moment about specific cases, spaces for consensus start to emerge. To give you an example, after debating some of the major pending cases together in Court, Fernando Castillo and I had a recent debate on Article 102 issues where, after leaving case-specific discussions on the side, we were able to agree on some questions of principle. There is, after all, some truth to the idea that difficult cases make bad law, and all Article 102 cases tend to be difficult cases. 

This is all to say that the upcoming guidelines are a perfect opportunity to try to find and build on that common ground to clarify the law instead of to fight about it. In that spirit, we will be publishing a series of blog posts, and at some point a paper (which will also reflect the feedback we receive here) on how we can find consensus on Article 102 based on hopefully non-controversial principles already settled by the Courts. This is not about meeting in the middle, but about having an honest discussion based on an honest interpretation of the case law.

For the purposes of this first post, let me illustrate my point by reference to one of the debates by reference to one of the debates that has kept lawyers (including myself), courts and pundits busy for the past few years.

When do the Bronner conditions apply?

We have spent years debating whether the Bronner conditions should apply or not to margin squeeze, to constructive or passive refusals, to implicit or explicit requests/refusals, to self-preferencing, etc, but the CJEU’s position is clear, consistent and, I think, very hard to disagree with. 

According to the CJEU, the imposition of those conditions is necessary and justified where a finding of abuse “has the consequence of forcing an undertaking to conclude a contract with [a] competitor”, because “such an obligation is especially detrimental to the freedom of contract and the right to property of the dominant undertaking” (Slovak Telekom, para. 46). 

The CJEU said the same in Lithuanian Railways (para. 86) and in Deutsche Telekom (para. 46). The GC recently said the same in Bulgarian Energy Holdings (para. 257, also 258, 282 and 451). AG Saugmandsgaard Øe explained this perfectly in his Opinion in Slovak Telekom (para. 74). AG Rantos explained it perfectly in his Opinion in Lithuanian Railways (paras. 64, 81 and 85), and AG Kokott also explains it in her recent Opinion in Google Shopping (paras 84-86). As AG Kokott observes, “after all, every obligation which Article 102 TFEU imposes on that undertaking to grant access or to supply to its competitors comes with an interference with that right and that freedom and must therefore be carefully weighed up and justified”. 

What matters, in other (the Court’s) words, is whether intervention under competition law would have the consequence of depriving the dominant company of its freedom of contract and right to property, and not so much the labels that one may use to describe the conduct at issue (e.g. constructive vs outright refusals). The European Commission has practically always held the same view; see for example the Commission’s written pleadings in Slovak Telekom, where the Commission explained to the Court that “the distinction (…) between outright refusals and constructive refusal is misleading. The true distinction is whether the circumstances are such that a compulsory access obligation stems directly from Article 102 TFEU, with failure to grant such access constituting an abuse (…)” (para. 34).

Many people would probably expect me to say that I disagree because this is an excessively narrow interpretation of the Bronner case law, but I don’t. Relying on the practical consequences of competition law intervention, as opposed to on formal categorizations, is the perfect way to ensure legal certainty and respect of fundamental rights, and to avoid an unduly wide or narrow application of those conditions. I have no trouble, for example, with the idea that margin squeeze needs to be subject to a different standard, which some have strongly disputed. In my mind the Court of Justice’s case law on this point is clear and sensible.

This, of course, does not mean that we will not continue to disagree on how this test applies to individual cases. For example, I may see weak spots in AG Kokott’s Opinion in Shopping (e.g. at paras. 125-126, where she appears to reason that it’s not necessary to ascertain whether the Bronner conditions should apply to the case at issue because they are not applicable, which seems circular) [I might not be objective, though, given that I represent one of the parties, so take my views with a pinch of salt, read it yourself and form your own opinion]. I, however, would not dispute AG Kokott’s general interpretation of the relevant case law because, again, case-specific disagreements driven by preferred outcomes should not be an obstacle to agreeing on what the law is. 

To be continued…