Home / Summaries / Steiner and Woods EU Law / commission-agents-travel

Exploitative Abuse - Unfair prices - Unfair trading conditions

4 important questions on Exploitative Abuse - Unfair prices - Unfair trading conditions

United Brands Co v Commission

UB was found to be imposing unfair conditions by refusing to allow importers to sell bananas while they were still green. This meant that only wholesalers with the correct storage and ripening facilities were able to handle the bananas. The fact that the consumer might thereby be assured of obtaining a better, more standardised product did not prevent the Commission and the Court from finding that this requirement constituted an abuse.

World Cup Decision [2000] OJ L5/55

The non-profit making organisation with the responsibility for organising the distribution of tickets put forward the argument that it had not benefitted from the limitation it had imposed on ticket sales, an argument the Commission dismissed as irrelevant.

United Brands Co v Commission

UB was charging prices with a difference of more than 100% in different common market countries, not according to objective criteria, but according to what the market would bear. This constituted discriminatory treatment.

British Airways v Commission

BA held a dominant position as a purchaser of air travel-agency services. It had offered all UK travel agents a performance reward scheme if sales of BA tickets increased. Following a complaint by Virgin Atlantic, the Commission concluded that BA had abused a dominant position.

The GC upheld this finding. Abuse was possible when two travel agents with identical sales would receive different rates of commission. BA's scheme therefore had discriminatory effects in the network of travel agents.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Steiner and Woods EU Law | 9780199685677 | Lorna Woods, et al

View summary