Määräävä markkina-asema/EN

Suomeksi

A dominant market position is not, in itself, prohibited — what is prohibited is its abuse. The concept is nevertheless central both to merger assessment and to restriction-of-competition matters, because an undertaking in a dominant position bears a broader special responsibility not to distort competition.

Avainkohdat

• Mistä on kyse: A dominant market position means an economic position of strength that enables an undertaking to act to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and, ultimately, consumers.
• Miksi sillä on kaupallista merkitystä: Under EU case law, an undertaking in a dominant position bears a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition that is already weakened — the same conduct may be permissible for a smaller player but prohibited for a dominant undertaking.
• Mikä menee useimmin pieleen: As a rule, even a high market share does not automatically mean dominance, and a low market share does not rule it out — the assessment is always holistic and market-specific. The exception is grocery retail, where the law sets a direct 30% market-share threshold (see section 4a below) — there, simply exceeding the market-share threshold is sufficient.

Definition

Under the EU courts' classic definition (Case 27/76, United Brands), a dominant market position is a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and, ultimately, consumers. The definition of a dominant market position in section 4(2) of the Competition Act 4 § (Finnish text) corresponds in substance to the concept under Article 102 TFEU; the prohibition on abuse itself is laid down separately in 7 § (Finnish text).

Market Share as the Starting Point for Assessment

Market share is the single most important — but never on its own decisive — indicator of dominance. Under settled case law (Case C-62/86, AKZO v Commission), a very high market share of around 50% or more constitutes a rebuttable presumption of dominance. A market share of 40–50% may also suffice in certain circumstances, if other factors (the fragmentation of competitors, barriers to entry, a technological lead) point to the same conclusion. Other factors relevant to the assessment include barriers to entry, buyer power, access to raw materials or distribution channels, and the undertaking's economic and financial strength relative to its competitors.

Special Regulation: Grocery Retail (Section 4a)

In addition to the general, case-law-based assessment, the Competition Act contains a separate statutory presumption of dominance, based on a considerably lower threshold, specific to the grocery retail sector. Under 4 a § (Finnish text), an undertaking or association of undertakings whose market share of grocery retail sales in Finland is at least 30% must be regarded as holding a dominant market position in the Finnish grocery retail market. The grocery retail market is understood to comprise both the retail market and the procurement market, meaning the presumption also extends to the retailer's negotiating position vis-à-vis its suppliers.

The provision was added to the Act by Act 586/2013 of 9 August 2013, based on Government proposal HE 197/2012, which was prompted by the exceptional concentration of the Finnish grocery retail market (the two largest operators controlled more than 80% of the market at the time the proposal was issued) and by concern over the exercise of buyer power by retailers vis-à-vis their suppliers. The purpose of the provision is to simplify the finding of dominance in this single sector: once the 30% market-share threshold is exceeded, a separate, comprehensive assessment of the relevant market and market power is no longer required — a finding of market share is sufficient. The threshold is markedly lower than the general, case-law-based presumption threshold of around 40–50% (see above).

Käytännön huomio

Advisory and contractual work between large grocery retail chains and their suppliers is governed by its own, lower 30% market-share threshold — a client's market position in this sector must therefore always be checked separately under section 4a, and the general 40–50% rule of thumb cannot be applied as such.

Special Responsibility

Under a principle well established in EU case law (Case 322/81, Michelin I, and subsequent case law), an undertaking in a dominant position bears a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition that is already restricted on the market in question. In practice, this means that a similar commercial practice — for example, a particular rebate scheme or an exclusive-purchasing obligation — may be assessed differently depending on whether it is carried out by a dominant undertaking or an ordinary competitor.

Käytännön huomio

When a client operates in a market with a high market share, it is always worth mapping out in advance whether it could be assessed as a dominant operator — in that case, many otherwise entirely ordinary commercial practices (e.g. loyalty rebates, exclusive agreements) require closer, forward-looking competition law assessment.

See Also

• Abuse of a Dominant Market Position
• Relevant Markets
• Competition Law Assessment of Mergers and Remedies

Sources

Lainsäädäntö ja lähteet tarkistettu 12.9.2026.