ntr116-C_202401645EN.000101-E0116
(116) See, for example, case M.5335 Lufthansa/SN Airholding, paragraph 33, where the Commission rejected the existence of a chain of substitution between different types of tickets, given that this was not corroborated by evidence. The price analysis conducted by the Commission showed that prices at the extremes of the alleged chain of substitution had very different levels and were not interdependent. See also, for example, case M.6905 Ineos/Solvay/JV, paragraphs 260, 261, 262 and 338, where the Commission rejected the existence of overlaps between the shipment areas of the principal S-PVC suppliers forming a chain of substitution across the EEA, based on a quantitative analysis showing lack of arbitrage and different pricing trends between the different overlapping catchment areas.
Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.