Is the forcing of services on suppliers an abuse of a dominant position? Case comment to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 February 2009 – DROP (Ref. No. III SK 31/08)
In the decision RPZ 21/2005 issued on 21 July 2005, the UOKiK President established an infringement of Article 8(2)(5) and (1) of the Act of 15 December 2000 on Competition and Consumer Protection1 (hereafter, Competition Act 2000) by the poultry producer DROP S.A. (hereafter, DROP). DROP was found...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Warsaw
2010-11-01
|
| Series: | Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies |
| Online Access: | https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2010_3_3/Piszcz_Is_the_forcing_of_services_on_suppliers_an_abuse_of_a_dominant_position.pdf |
| Summary: | In the decision RPZ 21/2005 issued on 21 July 2005, the UOKiK President established an infringement of Article 8(2)(5) and (1) of the Act of 15 December 2000 on Competition and Consumer Protection1 (hereafter, Competition Act 2000) by the poultry producer DROP S.A. (hereafter, DROP). DROP was found to have abused its dominant position in the purchase markets of duck hatching eggs and goose hatching eggs. The competition authority identified abuses in the form of: − counteracting the formation of conditions necessary for the emergence or development of competition (in this case – in the veterinary services market), and − the imposition of unfair trading conditions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1689-9024 2545-0115 |