Case C- 56/12 EFIM v Commission (complaint regarding 'aftermarket' exploitation) [Archived]
Case C- 56/12 EFIM v Commission (complaint regarding 'aftermarket' exploitation) [Archived]

The following Competition guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case C- 56/12 EFIM v Commission (complaint regarding 'aftermarket' exploitation) [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related/relevant cases

CASE HUB

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 September 2013; it is no longer maintained.

See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases

Case facts

Outline Appeal brought by the European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) against the General Court judgment upholding the Commission decision of 20 May 2009 rejecting EFIM's complaint concerning alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges.

This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with competition law complaints. It also confirms the substantive assessment of 'aftermarkets' for the purpose of analysing Article 102 TFEU.

Parties Appellant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM)

Other Parties:
• European Commission
• Lexmark International Technology SA (Lexmark)

Background On March 30 2000, Pelikan AG (Pelikan), an ink and ink cartridge manufacturer, lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging an abuse of a dominant position by Hewlett-Packard. Following discussions between Pelikan and the Commission regarding Pelikan's complaint, EFIM was founded on 8 November 2005 to unite European manufacturers of