Practical approaches in dealing with rebates by dominant suppliers

Conférence organisée par la Revue Concurrences en partenariat avec Microeconomix et 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

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.



[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’).


  • European Commission - DG COMP (Brussels)
  • Analysis Group (Paris)
  • United Kingdom’s Competition Authority (CMA) (London)
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)