Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (C-23/14)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
First and second subparagraphs of Ques…
47

Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (C-23/14)

Judgment of 6 Oct 2015law://eu/cjeu/2014/c-23-14/para_47@2026-11-10

47Lastly, should the referring court find that there are anticompetitive effects attributable to Post Danmark, it should be recalled that it is nevertheless open to a dominant undertaking to provide justification for behaviour liable to be caught by the prohibition set out in Article 82 EC.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-23/14 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:651
Decided: 6 Oct 2015
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark)
Applicant: Post Danmark A/S
Defendant: Konkurrencerådet
Rapporteur: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
R. Silva de Lapuerta, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, C. Lycourgos
Language: Danish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62014CJ0023

Topics

Dominant position

History · 1 version

6 Oct 2015Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions
Cited by 13: Servizio Elettrico Nazionale SpA and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others (C-377/20); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (C-152/19 P); Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. v European Commission (C-738/22 P); ‘Tallinna Kaubamaja Grupp’ AS and ‘KIA Auto’ AS v Konkurences padome (C-606/23)2 provisions; Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. v European Commission (T-334/19); Qualcomm, Inc. v European Commission (T-671/19); Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD and Others v European Commission (T-136/19); Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations Srl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (C-680/20); Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. v European Commission (T-604/18); Qualcomm, Inc. v European Commission (T-235/18); Google LLC, formerly Google Inc. and Alphabet, Inc. v European Commission (T-612/17)2 provisions; Slovak Telekom, a.s. v European Commission (C-165/19 P); MEO – Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência (C-525/16)
Cites 10: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities (85/76); France Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-202/07); Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (C-209/10); NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (322/81); Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission (C-549/10 P); British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities (C-95/04 P); Coöperatieve Vereniging "Suiker Unie" UA and others v Commission of the European Communities (C-40/73, C-41/73, C-42/73, C-43/73, C-44/73, C-45/73, C-46/73, C-47/73, C-48/73, C-50/73, C-54/73, C-55/73, C-56/73, C-111/73, C-113/73, C-114/73); AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities (C-62/86); Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB (C-52/09)