oreoui.blogg.se - Post danmark servicecenter kunde

#POST DANMARK SERVICECENTER KUNDE SERIES#

Post Danmark also enjoyed significant structural advantages through its statutory monopoly, which covered over 70% of all bulk mail in Denmark. The Konkurrencerådet found, inter alia, that Post Danmark was an unavoidable trading partner because it held over 95% of a market characterised by high barriers to entry and economies of scale.

the rebates were “retroactive,” in the sense that, where the threshold of mailings initially set was exceeded, the rebate rate applied at the end of the year applied to all mailings presented during the period concerned and not only to mailings exceeding the initial threshold.

the rebates were “conditional,” in the sense that Post Danmark and its customers concluded agreements, at the beginning of each year, and at the end of the year, Post Danmark made adjustments where the quantities presented were not the same as those that had been estimated initially and.

the rebate scale, which included rates from 6% to 16%, was “standardised,” that is to say, all customers were entitled to receive the same rebate on the basis of their aggregate purchases over an annual reference period.

The rebate scheme operated by Post Danmark in 20 had three main features.

In January 2007, Bring Citymail Danmark A/S began to deliver business mail, including direct advertising mail not covered by Post Danmark’s monopoly, but it exited the market in 2010 after suffering heavy losses.įollowing a complaint by Bring Citymail, the Konkurrencerådet found that Post Danmark abused its dominant position on the market for the distribution of bulk mail by applying rebates that effectively tied customers and foreclosed the market. To offset the universal service obligation and the uniform tariff scheme to which it was subject, Post Danmark had a statutory monopoly on the distribution of letters, including, in the case of bulk mail, direct advertising mail weighing up to 50 grams. In January 2014, the ECJ received a request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark), in proceedings between Post Danmark A/S and the Konkurrencerådet concerning a retroactive rebate scheme Post Danmark implemented in 20, when Post Danmark was controlled by the Danish State.

The background of the case, and the Court’s analysis are summarized below. The Court’s Post Danmark decision confirms that companies potentially holding a dominant position in EU market(s) need to be very careful in designing rebate schemes, even if such schemes appear to have no appreciable effect on competition. The Court also confirmed that there is no de minimis or appreciability requirement for the finding of an abuse of a dominant position. To the disappointment of many, the Court rejected Post-Danmark’s argument that the Konkurrencerådet should have applied the so-called as-efficient-competitor test and endorsed a more formalistic, traditional approach to the assessment of rebate schemes.

#POST DANMARK SERVICECENTER KUNDE SERIES#

The case is another significant milestone in a series of cases on the role of economic analysis in abuse-of-dominance cases under EU law. On 6 October 2015, the European Court of Justice (the Court) issued its preliminary ruling in Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Competition Council) 1, which concerns the antitrust treatment of a retroactive rebate scheme in the market for the distribution of bulk mail.