ntr112-C_202401645EN.000101-E0112
(112) See, for example, case M.7155 SSAB/Rautaruukki, paragraph 102, where the Commission considered that the strong geographic differentiation for flat steel products, as evidenced by the analysis of divergent prices between the Nordic countries, mainland Europe and the UK, warranted an assessment of the impact of the concentration focused on the Nordic countries. See also, for example, case M.7878 Heidelberg Cement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia, paragraphs 174-176 and 229-239, where the Commission explained that even within a relevant geographic market defined as an area where conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous, competitive conditions may change gradually from one location to another, and that such variations may need to be taken into account in the competitive assessment. This approach was confirmed by the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020, HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission, T-380/17, EU:T:2020:471, paragraph 325. See also, for example, cases M.8444 ArcelorMittal/Ilva and M.8713 Tata Steel/ThyssenKrupp/JV, where the relevant geographic market for finished flat carbon steel products was found to be EEA-wide, with geographic differentiation within the EEA (as confirmed in the latter case by the judgment of 22 June 2022, thyssenkrupp v Commission, T-584/19, EU:T:2022:386, paragraphs 145-258).
Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.