GLOSSARY

Article 102 definition

Published by a LexisNexis Commercial expert

What does Article 102 mean?

Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position on a substantial part of the internal market which affect trade between Member States.

View the related practice notes about Article 102

Spain behavioural investigations—closed cases tracker

Spain behavioural investigations—closed cases tracker This table summarises all completed investigations by Spain’s competition authority (the National Commission on Markets and Competition—the CNMC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2022 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 1 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Construction• 6 undertakings (listed here) Restrictive agreements—bid rigging • Infringement decision announced—07/07/2022; fines totalling €203.6m imposed Procurators• College of Attorneys of Santa Cruz de Tenerife Restrictive agreements • Commitments accepted—28/04/2022 Scrap-iron• ArcelorMittal• Balboa• Sidenor Restrictive agreements—exchange of commercial information • Infringement decision announced—14/03/2022; fines totalling €24m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 2 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Power transmission network• Enel Green Concerns Enel Green abused its dominant position by ensuring its own renewable energy generation facilities were awarded greater access capacity to nodes, to the detriment of its competitors • Infringement decision announced—14/06/2022; fines totalling €4.9m imposed Dog breeding and showing• The Royal Canine Society of Spain (RSCE) Concerns RSCE abused its dominant position by restricting associations from accessing the international market and hindered judges from taking part in other organizations' shows • Infringement decision announced—26/05/2022; fines totalling €142,996 imposed Postal services• Correos Concerns Correos abused its dominant position by operating

Slovak Telekom (and Deutsche Telekom)—broadband in Slovakia (COMP/39.523) [Archived]

Slovak Telekom (and Deutsche Telekom)—broadband in Slovakia (COMP/39.523) [Archived] CASE HUB (NOTE–appeals lodged) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into allegations of an abuse of dominant position in broadband services in Slovakia. The Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €69.9m on 15/10/2014. The abusive behaviour involved a refusal to supply and a margin squeeze. Latest developments On 15 October 2014, the Commission issued its infringement decision. The Commission has imposed a fine of €38,838,000 on Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom for breaching Article 102 TFEU. Deutsche Telekom is jointly liable for the fine because it has decisive influence over the actions of its subsidiary, Slovak Telekom. The Commission has imposed an additional fine of €31,070,000 on Deutsche Telekom. This reflects:• an increase of 50% to reflect repeated abusive behaviour (recidivism) by Deutsche Telekom following the 2003 fine imposed by the Commisison for abusing a dominant position by engaging in margin squeeze in the market for access to its unbundled local loop in Germany, and• a further increase of 20% to ensure that the fine has a sufficient deterrent effect given that Deutsche Telekom's worldwide turnover is in excess of €60bn. This

Discover our 274 Practice Notes on Article 102

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

View the related q&as about Article 102

In a written intellectual property licence that satisfies the English law requirements for creation of a contract and that is not in conflict with competition laws, can royalties be contractually agreed to be paid in perpetuity?

In a written intellectual property licence that satisfies the English law requirements for creation of a contract and that is not in conflict with competition laws, can royalties be contractually agreed to be paid in perpetuity? It has been assumed that this Q&A refers to validly created licences and individual IP right licence requirements (ie whether must be in writing and signed etc) have not been covered. As such in conducting our research, we have focused on IP licence agreements in which royalties are payable. There are many different types of UK IP licence. Such licences are governed by IP right specific laws such as the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Patents Act 1977 or the Trade Marks Act 1994. Technology transfer licensing is subject to UK and EU competition laws. Licences are also governed by common law. A perpetual licence may be granted (and the payment of royalties tied to the term of the licence). However, the period of the licence cannot extend the duration of the underlying IP right (for example for copyright this is the life of the author plus 70 years). We refer you to the UK section of the Practice Note: Getting the Deal Through: Licensing 2018 which addresses the following questions, among others: ‘9 What is the effect of the invalidity or expiry of registration of an intellectual property right on

In a B2B contract for the sale of goods incorporating software, can you exclude the right of the buyer to reverse engineer the goods for the buyer's own repair purposes and prevent the buyer selling reverse engineered goods in competition with the seller? Can you stop the buyer using confidential information supplied with the goods to facilitate reverse engineering?

In a B2B contract for the sale of goods incorporating software, can you exclude the right of the buyer to reverse engineer the goods for the buyer's own repair purposes and prevent the buyer selling reverse engineered goods in competition with the seller? Can you stop the buyer using confidential information supplied with the goods to facilitate reverse engineering? This Q&A covers the situation where: • the goods in question are not protected by a patent or otherwise protected by registered intellectual property rights (IPRs) • the goods may be simply physical parts or machines which also incorporate software, and • the seller wishes to prevent the buyer selling goods created using the knowledge acquired by reverse engineering Competition issues On the face of it there may be a competition law angle to consider in this situation. This is on the basis that, but for the clause in question, the purchaser could (and may have the requisite incentive to) enter or expand in a market in competition with the party supplying the product (Party A)—whether this is in: • an aftermarket for maintenance/repair (whether Party A branded or not) • a derivative component/technology market (ie inputs, knowhow, etc derived from the decomposed

See the 4 Q&As about Article 102

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

View the related News about Article 102

Competition weekly highlights—21 July 2022

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from an EU perspective, a number of opinions from the EU courts, including (among other things): (1) AG Rantos’ opinion suggesting that the Court of Justice dismiss American Airlines’ appeal in relation to the US Airways/American Airlines merger, , (2) AG Kokott opinion recommending that the Court of Justice rules in favour of the Commission in relation to its 2014 Servier ‘pay-for-delay’ decision, (3) an opinion from AG Pitruzzella suggesting that the Court of Justice should allow the appeal by French supermarkets and set aside the relevant part of the General Courts judgment concerning a part of the Commission’s dawn raids decision, (4) an opinion from AG Rantos opinion on whether a supplier-distribution relationship can constitute a single economic entity. In addition, this weeks highlights includes, from UK perspective, a CAT judgment unanimously dismissing a damages claim alleging abuse of dominant position regarding exclusivity agreements in the supply of academic dress for graduation ceremonies.

EU Competition law—daily round-up (14/07/2022)

A round-up of EU competition law developments, including (amongst other things) (1) an opinion from AG Rantos suggesting that the Court of Justice dismisses American Airlines’ appeal in relation to the US Airways/American Airlines merger, (2) an opinion from AG Kokott recommending that the Court of Justice rules in favour of the Commission in Servier appeals, (3) an opinion from AG Pitruzzella suggesting that the Court of Justice should allow the appeal by French supermarkets and set aside the relevant part of the General Courts judgment concerning a part of the Commission’s dawn raids decision, (4) an opinion from AG Rantos opinion on whether a supplier-distribution relationship can constitute a single economic entity, and (5) 3) the Commission’s announcement that it has launched a market test of commitments offered by Amazon regarding seller data, ‘Buy Box’ and Prime

Read the latest 157 News articles on Article 102

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"In some areas of research there were also significant time savings. You get to what you are looking for more quickly, which all goes to the value of the product."

Harper Mcleod

Access all documents on Article 102

GET ACCESS NOW

Top