Section B (Law)

5 law questions – answer 1 or 2

No hypothetical problem questions

Q. 6.

- Relates to the nascent business practices which are highly questionable in the light of Article
101 TFEU
o Reading list 3 – information exchange and price signalling?

Q. 7.

- General essay-style question about the Verticals regulation

o Copy of the verticals regulation will be attached in exam
o Commission’s Notice: Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (SEC (2010) 411) – Clear
picture on the guiding philosophy underpinning the Verticals Regulation.
o Jones and Sufrin verticals regulation is analysed in depth at pp.818-833 and top of 834
of Jones and Sufrin.

Q.8

- Encapsulates a series of questions on just one aspect of Article 102 TFEU

- Possibly;
o Define the concept of dominance
o Explain whether it is possible for buyers to enjoy a position of dominance
o Understand the extent to which market power and barriers to entry are important in
the context of assessing whether an undertaking is in a dominant position

Q. 9

- A bit technical – relates to the Intel case

Q. 10

- Relates to the essential facilities concept and you can add value with Microsoft case and how
it has contributed to the evolution of law in this area.
2016 – Concerted Practices vs natural tendencies

Examine the key differences between concerted practices (prohibited by Article 101 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the one hand, and the natural tendencies of
oligopolictic markets (permissible in the context of EU Competition Law) on the other. Support your
analysis with references to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Or – 2016 - Information exchange and price signalling

Assess the extent to which undertakings run the risk of infringing Article 1010 TFEU by engaging in
price signalling or exchanges of market related information with one another. Support your answer
with references to case-law

2016 – Abuse of Dominance

If an undertaking in a dominant position in an upstream market refuses to supply goods to a company

in a downstream market, would such refusal constitute an abuse of dominance? Is it permissible for
dominant firms to refuse to supply goods to recalcitrant customers with poor credit records? To what
extent can a dominant supplier of goods favour regular customers to the detriment of occasional
clients? Refer to CJEY case-law in your answer. Please note that this question relates to the refusal to
supply goods (and not facilities)

2016 – Verticals Regulation

Explain the rationale behind the Verticals Regulation (Regulation 330/2010/EU) and examine the
extent to which it protects vertical agreements from the strict application of Article 101 TFEU?

2016 – Concept of Dominance

Examine the criteria used by the CJEY to establish whether an undertaking holds a dominant position
in the marketplace. Is such dominance enjoyed solely by sellers or are there instances in which buyers
can hold a dominant position in the marketplace?

2016 – Identifying relevant market

What techniques and legal principles have been developed by the European Commission and the
Court of Justice respectively to identify the relevant product market for the purposes of Competition
Policy analysis?
2015

Examine the extent to which EU Competition law produces extra-territorial effects in countries located
outside of the European Union. Refer to case-law in support of your answer

2015

Explain the difference between legitimate oligopolistic behaviour and illicit cartels/concerted
practices prohibited under Article 1010 TFEU. Refer to case-law and/or practical examples in your
answer

2015 – Verticals Regulation

Outline the key elements of the ‘Verticals’ Regulation (Regulation 330/2010). Do you think this
regulation makes sense from an economic perspective?

2015 – Existence of a Dominant Position

Examine the legal criteria used by the Court of Justice to determine whether an undertaking occupies
a dominant position in the marketplace. To what extent, if at all, can a buyer of goods and services
enjoy a position of dominance? [Please bear in mind that this question is exclusively about the
existence of a dominant position. Candidates who deviate from the subject matter of the question –
by focusing on the case-law on abuse of dominance – will not secure any additional marks for their
endeavours in this regard.]

2015 – Essential Facilities Concept

Examine the scope of the essential facilities doctrine. Refer to case-law in support of your answer.
2014

Explain the extent to which EU Competition Law applies, extra-territorially, to undertakings based
outside of the EU. Refer to decided cases in support of your answer.

2014 - individual and block exemptions

Examine the criteria governing the grant of individual exemptions under Article 101 (3) TFEU. Explain
the difference between individual and block exemptions. Why are block exemptions so important
from the perspective of undertakings wishing to do business efficiently in the EU?

2014 – Concerted Practices

“Proving that a concerted practice exists may be a complicated task. It will be especially difficult in
those cases that tread the key borderline between co-ordinated market behaviour prohibited by
Article 101 (1) TFEU and parallel behaviour resulting from decisions independently arrived at by
undertakings. Since it will often be the existence of parallel conduct that gives rise to a suspicion of
concertation, it may become a matter of fine judgement as to whether what is going on is simply the
right of a party to ‘adapt intelligently’ to the decisions of competitors or whether collusion has been
present”. [Wyatt & Dashwood’s European Union Law (6th edition, Hart publishing, 2011) p.737].

Examine the distinction between legitimate oligopolistic behaviour and concerted practices in the light
of the above quotation. Refer to decided cases and/or practical examples in your answer

2014 – Abuse of Dominance, refusal to supply

Discuss the key factors which are influential in assessing whether a refusal to supply constitutes an
abuse of a dominant position. Refer to case-law in support of you answer

2014 - Microsoft

Write an analysis of the decision in Case T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission E.C.R. II- 2601. Refer to
both the ‘interoperability information’ and ‘technical bundling’ aspects of the case in your answer
2013

Write an essay entitled the role of economics in eu competition law

2013

Explain the difference between legitimate oligopolistic behaviour and illicit cartels/concerted
practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU. Refer to case-law and/or practical examples in support
of your answer

2013

In defining the scope and extent of the term ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of EU Competition law,
the court of justice draws a line between economic engagement in the marketplace on the one hand
and the exercise of public authority for regulatory functions on the other

Discuss the above statement. Support your answer with references to decided cases

2013

The question, ‘Is this firm in a dominant position?’ I simply answered: It depends! And it depends on
exactly what it is that the firm is alleged to be dominating. The producer of 80% of a nation’s ox liver
dominates the ox liver market. But there is no lack of competition if the consumer will simply switch
preference to lamb’s liver in the event of the ox liver producer raising prices. The breadth of the
market, then, has to be defined accurately before one can logically accuse a firm of dominance in that
market, and before one can claim a rationale for intervention to control dominance [Weatherill, Cases
and Materials on EU Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) p. 523]

Examine the criteria used by both the commission and the court of justice in defining the relevant
product market in competition cases

2013

Explain why Microsoft’s refusal to supply interface information to developers wishing to create
‘workgroup’ server operating systems was ultimately categorised as an ‘abuse of dominance’ by the
general court. Do you agree with the logic and reasoning of the General Court in relation to the
interoperability issue in the Microsoft case?
2012 Explain the distinction between legitimate oligopolistic behaviour and cartels/concerted
practices prohibited under Article 1010 TFEU. Refer to decided cases and/or practical example
in your response

2012 Assess the extent to which Regulation 330/2010 (on vertical restraints) promotes a more
flexible and market-based analysis in relation to block exemptions

2012 Explain why Microsoft’s refusal to supply interface information to developers wishing to
create ‘workgroup’ server operating systems was ultimately categorised as an ‘abuse of
dominance’ by the General Court? Do you agree with the logic and reasoning of the General
Court in relation to the interoperability issues in the Microsoft Case

2012 A facility will be essential if the handicap to a new entrant resulting from denial of access can
reasonably be expected to make the competitors’ activities in the market in question either
impossible or permanently, seriously and unavoidably uneconomic [Wyatt & Dashwood,
European Union Law (6th edition, Hart Publishing, 2011) pp.800-801]

Examine the essential facilities doctrine in the light of the above statement. Support your
answer with references to decided cases and/or examples

2012 Examine the extent to which the Commission can prohibit mergers with the potential to create
‘co-ordinated effects’. Refer to case-law in your answer

2011 At its simplest – and it is sensible in considering competition law and policy not to lose sight
of simple propositions – the benefits of competition are lower prices, better products, wider
choice and greater efficiency than would obtain under conditions of monopoly [Richard
Whish, Competition Law (2008), p.4]

Assess the advantages of competition law and policy in the light of the above quotation
2011 Examine the extent to which unilateral conduct directed at distributors by suppliers (under
contract to them) comes within the scope of the prohibition in Article 101(1) of the TFEU.
Refer to decided cases in support of your answer

2011 The wording of article 102 TFEU specifies that in order to establish a breach of this provision,
it is necessary to prove firstly, that a company is dominant, secondly, that it has abused that
position of dominance, and finally, the effect that such abuse has or may have on intra-Union
trade.

Choose one and explain its meaning by using decided cases and or examples in support of
your answer

2011 Examine the scope and extent of the “essential facilities” doctrine. Refer to case-law in
support of your answer

2011 Although regulation 1/2003/EC gave greater prominence to national regulatory authorities
and courts as the primary enforcers of EU Competition law, the European Commission still has
an important role to play in policing anti-competitive behaviour. Explain how the Commission
investigates and penalises infringements of Competition Law