{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02503576537911302, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002861230329041488, 'mean_word_length': 5.273542600896861, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Abuse of Dominance in the Case-law of the Hungarian Competition Authority – a Historical Overview

This paper provides a historical overview of the case-law and practices applied by the Hungarian Competition Authority (HCA) in abuse of dominance cases. The paper is co-written by practitioners of complementing antitrust fields, which ensures that both legal and economic considerations are explored. The paper identifies the unique characteristics of Hungarian legislation and case-law and critically evaluates them in light of EU competition law and economics principles. We analyse (i) the reasons for the high number of exploitative cases before 2010, (ii) the general principles applied by the HCA in exclusionary cases, (iii) the cost allocation assessments in dominance cases, and (iv) the issue of significant market power of retailers. The general starting point is that, judging by the number of dominance investigations, there is less antitrust enforcement by the HCA in recent years. However, the article concludes that less enforcement does not mean weaker enforcement. In fact, the quality of dominance cases, considering both legal and economic aspects, has increased over time. This tendency has also led to higher legal certainty in Hungary, which is beneficial for market players. Stronger criticism is only formulated against the concept of significant market power of retailers.