Determining Whether Price Disparity Constitutes an Abuse of Dominance.

Determining Whether Price Disparity Constitutes an Abuse of Dominance.

Journal article

1 electronic resource (page 1193-1196)

Headnotes by the Editorial Office 1. The mere fact that price disparity by the dominant undertaking can place the paying customers at a disadvantage when competing with customers not charged the respective fee is insufficient to establish a competitive disadvantage within the meaning of Art. 102(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 2. There must be an assessment of how the price disparity actually affects the competitive status of the customers concerned, considering the specific circumstances of the case. Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), judgment of 1 March 2024 – 22/03167 […] 2 Starting points and facts 2.1 For the purposes of the appeal, the following can be assumed: (i) Buma and Stemra are collective management organisations (CMOs) within the meaning of the Wet toezicht en geschillenbeslechting collectieve beheersorganisaties auteurs- en naburige rechten [Law on Supervision and Dispute Resolution for Collective Management Organisations for Copyright and Neighbouring Rights]. They focus on the rights to publicly perform and to reproduce musical works, respectively. Buma is the only organisation in the Netherlands authorised to act as an intermediary in matters relating to copyright in musical works as referred to in Art. 30a of the Auteurswet [Dutch Copyright Act].

Crossref

GRUR International ; 73, 12, 2024, 2632-8550.

[Oxford, England] : Oxford University Press (OUP), 2024.

Anglais

https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505

External Online Journals > GRUR