CASE COMMENTS: UNILATERAL PRACTICES - ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION - EXCLUSIONARY ABUSE - REFUSAL TO SUPPLY - ESSENTIAL FACILITY - DISCRIMINATORY PRICING

Essential facility - Refusal to supply: The CFI confirms an abuse of dominant position consisting in hindering access to an essential facility and adopting discriminatory pricing (Clearstream)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. CFI, 9 September 2009, Clearstream v Commission, Case T-301/04 Clearstream is, as we know, a clearing and settlement organization for securities transactions. The Clearstream group consists of, inter alia, a parent company established in Luxembourg and a subsidiary established in Germany. It is the latter company that was condemned by the Commission for abusive behaviour aimed at foreclosing its competitor Euroclear Bank (EU Commission, Dec. 2009/C 165/05 of 2 June 2004, Case COMP/38.096 - Clearstream, OJ C 165, 17 July 2009). Euroclear is the only operator together with Clearstream to provide clearing and settlement services for international

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.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Catholic University of Louvain

Quotation

Anne-Lise Sibony, Essential facility - Refusal to supply: The CFI confirms an abuse of dominant position consisting in hindering access to an essential facility and adopting discriminatory pricing (Clearstream), 9 September 2009, Concurrences N° 4-2009, Art. N° 29260, pp. 106-108

Visites 2451

All reviews