ABSTRACT
In this article I examine the scope of application of the law of collective dominance in Article 102 TFEU. It is unclear to what extent a group of competing as opposed to colluding firms may constitute what the European Court of Justice in the CEWAL II case has defined as ‘collective entity.’ The analysis draws from key case law of collective dominance. It first reviews early cases like SIV, Almelo and CEWAL II to later focus on more recent ones including TACA, Piau and Sony/BMG. I conclude that while colluding firms can constitute collective entity and eventually hold a position of collective dominance, competitive scenarios are seemingly excluded such as the relationship of non-collusive, economic interdependence between firms in oligopoly.
