(AGENPARL) – gio 19 gennaio 2023 Nazionale
AL NORD
Al mattino deboli fenomeni in Emilia Romagna con neve a bassa quota, asciutto altrove con molte nubi. Al pomeriggio isolati fenomeni tra Romagna e Alpi orientali con neve fin verso i 200 metri. In serata non sono previste variazioni di rilievo con neve anche in pianura sugli stessi settori.
AL CENTRO
Al mattino isolate pioviggini sui settori tirrenici, variabilità asciutta altrove. Al pomeriggio precipitazioni sparse su regioni adriatiche e basso Lazio con neve fino a quote collinari, asciutto altrove con molte nubi. In serata ancora instabilità con piogge sparse e neve fin verso i 200-400 metri, più asciutto su Toscana e alto Lazio.
AL SUD E SULLE ISOLE
Al mattino piogge sulle Isole Maggiori con neve oltre i 400 metri in Sardegna, variabilità asciutta altrove. Al pomeriggio generale peggioramento con piogge e temporali sparsi, neve oltre i 600-1000 metri. In serata insiste il maltempo sulle regioni peninsulari con quota neve in lieve cali, fenomeni più sporadici sulle Isole Maggiori.
Temperature minime e massime in generale diminuzione su tutta l’Italia.
[Www.centrometeoitaliano.it](http://www.centrometeoitaliano.it/)
Video meteo domani: https://www.youtube.com/c/CentrometeoitalianoIt/videos

Testo Allegato: ��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
PRESS RELEASE No 14
/23
Luxembourg, 19 January 2023
Judgment of the Court in Case C
680/20 | Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations
Abuse of a dominant position: exclusivity clauses in distribution contracts
must
be capable of having exclusionary
effects
The c

��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa
.eu
it is established that that conduct was not adopted independently by its distributors, but forms part of a policy
decided unilaterally by that producer and implemented through those distributors.
In such a situation, the distributors and, conseque
ntly, the distribution network which those distributors form with
the dominant undertaking must be regarded as merely an instrument of territorial implementation of the
commercial policy of that undertaking and, on that basis, as being the instrument by wh
ich, as the case may be, the
exclusionary practice at issue was implemented.
That applies in particular where, as in the present case,
the distributors of a
producer
in a dominant position
are
required to have operators of sales outlets sign standard contr
acts which are supplied by that producer and contain
exclusivity clauses for the benefit of its products.
Next, the Court answers the question of whether, for the purposes of the application of Article
102 TFEU, in a case
such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, the competent competition authority is required to establish that
exclusivity clauses in distribution contracts have the effect of excluding from the market competitors that a
re as
efficient as the
undertaking
in a dominant position
and whethe
r that authority is required to examine in detail the
economic analyses produced by that undertaking, in particular where they are based on ‘as efficient competitor
test’.
In t
hat regard,
the Court states that
abuse of a dominant position may, inter alia,
be established where the
conduct compla
ined of has produced exclusionary
effects in respect of competitors that are as efficient as
the perpetrator of that conduct
in terms of cost structure, capacity to innovate or quality, or where that conduct is
based
on the use of means other than those which come under the scope of ‘normal’ competition, that is to say,
based on
the merits. It is, in general, for the competition authorities to demonstrate the abusive nature of conduct
in the light of all the relevant f
actual circumstances surrounding the conduct in question, which includes those
highlighted by the evidence adduced in defence by the undertaking in a dominant position.
It is true that, in order to establish that conduct is abusive, a competition authority
does not necessarily have to
demonstrate that that conduct actually produced anti
competitive effects. Accordingly,
a competition authority
may find that there has been an infringement of Article
102 TFEU by establishing that
, during the period in
which t
he conduct in question was implemented,
that conduct was
, in the circumstances of the case,
capable of
restricting competition on the merits despite its lack of effect
. However, that demonstration must, in principle,
be based on tangible evidence which est
ablishes, beyond mere hypothesis, that the practice in question is actually
capable of producing such effects, since the existence of doubt in that regard must benefit the undertaking which
engages
in
such a practice.
Although a competition authority may r
ely on guidance from economic sciences, confirmed by empirical or
behavioural studies, in order to assess whether an undertaking’s conduct is capable of restricting competition, other
factors specific to the circumstances of the case, such as the extent of
that conduct on the market, capacity
constraints on suppliers of raw materials, or the fact that the undertaking in a dominant position is, at least, for part
of the demand, an inevitable partner, must also be taken into account in order to determine whet
her, in the light of
that guidance, the conduct at issue must be regarded as having been
capable of producing exclusionary
effects on

Judgment of
6 September
2017,
Intel
Commission
C 413/14
(see also Press Release
90/2017

��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa
.eu
capable of p
roducing the alleged exclusionary
effects and puts forward evidence in support of its claims, the
competition authority is required, inter alia, to assess
whether there is a strategy aimed at excluding competitors
that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking.
In the second place, the Court added that the analy
sis of the capacity to exclude
is also relevant in assessing
NOTE:
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of
European
Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on
oth
er national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The
full text
of the judgment is publis
hed on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa
.eu
Stay Connected
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
(+352) 4303 3355