COMPETITION POLICY EU ANS FINAL HASBA

Based upon the case's circumstances, Strong Steel and Steel United are two steel-
producing businesses with substantial market interests. Strong Steel offers
appealing prices with the goal to boost sales in Poland, Romania, and the Czech
Republic. Additionally, they reach an arrangement with various European
businesses attempting to deal with the economic crisis. We are going to next
examine if these regulations have been subject to judicial review under EU law, in
particular primarily under TFEU Articles 101 and 102.

Considering that there exists an arrangement among the corporations to manipulate

the markets through raising the cost of steel by 0.5%, the primary question to
which we must answer is if there is a breach of Article 101 TFEU. The initial
prerequisite is the fact that there need to be an undertaking or a number of
undertakings to be able to establish infringement. To determine whether Strong
Steel is going to be viewed as an endeavor or not, is the initial aspect of this.
Any person or organisation associated with an economic activity would be referred
as being an undertaking in (Hoffner). The second requirement would be establishing
whether or not an agreement within the two sides is available or not. An
understanding can be summed up through the circumstanc of (Constan) as oral,
written, gentleman's promise, vertical or horizontal. In the present instance,
Strong Steel is providing steel and so it is going to constitute as an undertaking.
In the present instance, the data plainly demonstrate that Strong Stee has beenl
engaged with every single one of the European steel-producing businesses with the
aim of raising the selling cost of steel by 0.5%. Hence evidently there has been an
agreement.

Additionally, considering that it has been established that a contract exists, we

must demonstrate if it possesses the ability to promote competition throughout
several EU Member States, termed as the Jurisdictional point, which requires being
satisfied. In our example, we observe that Strong Steel along with other Steel
Companies produce and distribute Steel across the EU across various places like
Poland, Romania, and Czech Republic, that is going to boost the Competition to a
greater extent. In the event if the agreement's objective or the affect aims to
decrease or obstruct competition within the internal market, then this leads to an
additional third point we must demonstrate. While looking into the details of the
case, we observe that there has been no authentic market impact, but the item in
question still exists, as demonstrated by (T-Mobile), and given that there appeared
to be a contract, the third point also needs to be achieved. Once every
prerequisite seems to get together, Article 101 has been violated.

As the violation currently has been demonstrated, we are further going to examine
the two-stage test set forth by (Metropole Television), requiring that both a
violation of Art. 101 be established and shown to have occurred in addition to any
relevant exceptions should be taken into account as well, A total of four criteria
are required to be accomplished: initially, there must be technological advances or
economic progress; within our situation, this issue can be argued, but it is going
to be invalidated since the higher cost is going to make it more challenging for
other businesses to purchase and generate goods made of steel. Following this, we
will figure out if there exists any advantage to consumers. Since steel is an
economically vital product, one may argue yet again that manufacturing it promotes
a country's industries. However, since this claim has not been supported,
this reasoning will also fail. Thirdly, since there isn't one, the agreement ends
up being null and void because those involved would not have agreed upon anything
thus the customers could not gain from it. Finally, the contractual arrangement
must cover a significant period of time while maintaining competitiveness in the
market. This argument is unlikely to be fulfilled either because the details of the
case indicate that an insufficient time frame was given.
In light of the fact that none of the exceptions had been given, the EU Commission
proposed the idea of a leniency notice, meaning that Strong Steel would receive
protection for tipping off the Commission. Strong Steel ought to be cautious whilst
working alongside the other steel businesses because barring a leniency notice,
they may be held accountable under Article 101 TFEU.

Assuming that just Strong Steel is providing reductions while no other entities are
involved, the next subject that needs to be covered is if there was an improper use
of the prevailing position. Additionally, we will evaluate if the market is the
market for goods or a geographical one. In order to accomplish this, we must
initially determine the dominant market within which the project is operating. The
Commission will decide the extent to which the products are replaceable; such a
decision will be made considering the features, cost, and intended purpose of each
product. The three standards that the courts will apply next are the cross
elasticity of supply (Michelin Tyres Case), the cross elasticity of demand (United
Brands Case), and a small yet significant non transitory increase in price (SSNLP
test).

According to the case details, the marketplace is geographical in nature because it

surpasses national borders to incorporate with countries like Poland, Romania, and
the Czech Republic. In addition, Steel United, Strong Steel's biggest opponent,
holds 30% of the market whilst Strong Steel holds 41%. Moving forward, we must
continue to show supremacy. Since our market shares have demonstrated, there exists
no significant gap; nevertheless, if we think about the barriers to entry in the
steel industry, we are going to discover that they are very substantial and
difficult, meaning that one would require a whole workforce, significant resources,
and an established market position to be able to establish an identity for
themselves. Since everything has been taken into account, supremacy is demonstrated
simply by the fact that entry requirements are at its highest point.

Proceeding on, we will now establish the question if there has been abuse after
establishing control. According to Hoffman, abuse is anything that hinders the
level of competition in a market from staying the same or increasing. There is an
incomplete list of abuses, but discriminatory pricing is the most relevant one in
our instance as stated in the case, Strong Steel exclusively offers price
reductions to new customers whereas charging ordinarily in their native nation
(Irish Sugar instance). This discourages competitors.

Hence, Strong Steel is going to be held responsible for the dominant misuse of
authority as we possess evidence of the abuse, that constitutes to violation of
Article 102.