This article starts by looking at Article 86 of the ECC Treaty governing antitrust violations and the significance of "dominant position" in applying the Rule. The author then explains how in light of United Brands v. Commission, a Court of Justice of the European Communities Court, evidence of dominance may be classified in four categories. Next, the author explains the different types of abuses under Article 86. Finally, the author draws four conclusions. First, the contrast drawn by various authors between the EEC law, which prohibits abuse of a dominant position, and U.S. law, which forbids "monopolisation", is exaggerated and inaccurate. Second, all the U.S. case law on monopolising and attempts to monopolise under section 2 of the Sherman Act is relevant to EEC law. Third, the valuable economic analyses of U.S. antitrust cases and policies is directly relevant and valuable in considering Community antitrust policy and experience, and this should encourage more comparative and economic analysis of European Community antitrust law. Fourth, if "monopolising" by a dominant enterprise is prohibited by Article 86, complaints against such behavior will be encouraged.
John Temple Lang,
Some Aspects of Abuse of Dominant Positions in European Community Antitrust Law,
3 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol3/iss1/1