The EU Court of First Instance reject an appeal from a company justifying its abuse of dominance for the health and safety of its customers in the market for nail guns and the nails and cartridge strips (Hilti)

Case T-30/89 Hilti AG v Commission of the European Communities* 1. Neither Article 19 of Regulation No 17 nor Article 2(4) of Regulation No 99/63, even when read together with Article 3(1) of Regulation No 99/63, can be construed as requiring the undertaking concerned to reply, in the course of the administrative procedure provided for by Community competition law, to the statement of objections sent to it by the Commission. Neither of those regulations, nor any general principle of Community law, obliges the undertakings concerned to do any more than supply the Commission with

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.