...
Dissimilar conditions exist when the equivalent transactions produce a differential rate of return for the dominant firm arising out of dominant firm’s discrimination.[4] In Italy v. Commission[5], it is explicitly held that “…Discrimination in substance would consist in treating either similar situations differently or different situations identically.” Hence, even though the dominant firm deployed the same conditions in the case, such practice may also be found discriminatory wherever it is “treating different situations identically.”
3. Competitive disadvantage
In her opinion on British Airway v. Commission[6], General Advocate Kokott has raised the two-stage test to establish competitive disadvantage.[7] This two-stage test requires: First, a competitive relationship between the dominant company’s trading parties should be established. Secondly, a negative impact on these trading parties’ competitive position deriving from the discriminatory conduct should be determined.[8] However, in practice the Commission and the Court skips or briefly addresses on the assessment in the actual or potential competitive status among the trading parties, but assesses in detail the unlawful practice’s impact on the trading parties’ market positions.[9]
...
