To make a step further, first the mere finding of more than 90% of market share can be regarded as the “safe harbour” for the conclusion of SMP.　Next, after investigating more than 50 Commission decisions, I unfortunately did not find a case where the market share of the undertaking concerned ranges from 80% to 90%. Therefore, it is not clear whether a market share of more than 80% alone can be concluded as SMP. Subsequently, in case of market share less than 80%, extra works to appraise other criteria prove to be necessary. In particular, the Commission takes a very critical view over NRAs’ assessment of undertakings the market share of which is lower than 70%, as indicated by the two cased aforementioned. Last, the Commission did not rule out the possibility to designate undertakings with lower market share as SMP undertakings.　
　　This approach is not so different from the assessment of dominance. Even we can conclude that when using the very large market share as the sole criterion to assess market power, the standard for assessing SMP is relatively higher than dominance because according to ECJ case law
　　 75-87% was found to be “so large that they are in themselves evidence of a dominant position”;
　　 84-90% was “so large that they prove the existence of a dominant position”;　and
　　 93-100% has the result that it in fact has monopoly.
　　2. Dynamic competition
　　As far as concerns the cases where the market share of the suspected undertaking in the relevant market is less than 80%, a full assessment of other 12 criteria　by NRAs is necessary. The Commission did not prefer one or several criteria to others. In addition, as indicated by the two Finnish cases, NRAs also have wide margin of discretion to choose some criteria, not all of them, to support their conclusion. From the point of view of selecting criteria, the assessment of SMP is identical to dominance, which is also the opinion of the Commission.　

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 页 共[7]页