A practical approach in dealing with rebates by dominant suppliers

Conference organized by Concurrences Review in partnership with Microeconomix and Baker & McKenzie.

Walking the rebates tightrope

Advising on rebates counselling involves walking a tightrope between the Article 102 Priorities Guidance [1] and Tomra [2], Post Danmark II [3] and Intel [4] case law. On the one hand an economic approach, clear in intellectual conception, but complex in real-world application. On the other, a judge-made distillation of form-based categories. The latter pleases neither lawyers - as many rebate schemes fall between the gaps of the categories’ ill-defined edges - nor economists - as form-based rules may penalise economically benign practices.

Photos © Emilie Gomez

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.



[1Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying TFEU art.102 to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] OJ C 45/7 (“Priorities Guidance”).

[2Judgment in Tomra Systems and Others v Commission, C‑549/10 P, EU:C:2012:221 (’Tomra’).

[3Judgment in Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet, C-23/14, EU:C:2015:651 (’Post Danmark II’).

[4Judgment in Intel v Commission, T-286/09, EU:T:2014:547 (’Intel’).


  • DG COMP (Brussels)
  • Analysis Group (Paris)
  • United Kingdom Competition Authority (London)
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (London)