Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Commission
Very large market shares are in themselves evidence of dominance, and loyalty rebates granted by a dominant undertaking in return for exclusive purchasing are an abuse.
Facts
Hoffmann-La Roche was the largest manufacturer of vitamins in the world. It entered into agreements with large purchasers under which they agreed to buy all or most of their requirements of vitamins from it, in return for rebates which depended on their buying a high proportion of their needs from Roche. The European Commission found that this was an abuse of a dominant position.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice upheld the finding of abuse. The court said that very large shares are in themselves, and save in exceptional circumstances, evidence of the existence of a dominant position. The concept of abuse is an objective concept relating to the behaviour of a dominant undertaking which is such as to influence the structure of a market where, as a result of the very presence of the undertaking, the degree of competition is weakened, and which, through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition on the basis of the performance of commercial operators, has the effect of hindering the maintenance or growth of competition. Fidelity rebates, conditional on exclusive or near exclusive purchasing, were an abuse.
Related cases on dominance and exclusionary abuse
- Europemballage Corp and Continental Can Co Inc v Commission Case 6/72, [1973] ECR 215
- Google LLC and Alphabet Inc v Commission (Google Shopping) Case C-48/22 P, EU:C:2024:726
- Intel Corp v Commission Case C-413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632
- Meta Platforms Inc v Bundeskartellamt Case C-252/21, EU:C:2023:537
- Microsoft Corp v Commission Case T-201/04, [2007] ECR II-3601
- Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading [2002] CAT 1, [2002] Comp AR 13
- Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie Michelin NV v Commission (Michelin I) Case 322/81, [1983] ECR 3461
- Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Post Danmark I) Case C-209/10, EU:C:2012:172
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
