2. A relevant market is a market which sells particular products and services. In the case of a suspected violation of competition rules, the relevant market is considered to be the most important element to think about. In competition law, the relevant market can be defined as a market where two or more products can be substitute goods or complementary goods. Substitute goods are the products that can be used as an alternative to other products whereas material or good whose use is interrelated with the use of an associated or paired good such that a demand for one (tires, for example) generates demand for the other (gasoline, for example) are called complementary goods. European Commission on anti-monopoly authorities determines the relevant market for the case of product market, territorial market and time framework. Determining the scope of the competition rules in respect of restrictive practices and abuses of a dominant position are important to be taken into consideration while defining the relevant market.Market dominance measures the strength of a particular brand, firm, service or a product comparing them to the substitutes available on the market. Defining the market dominance means describing the extent to which the particular company or a product controls the market in a given geographic area. If a company’s market share is equal to more than 40% of the national market, we can assume that the company is dominant. Still, a market research has to be conducted. There are different ways of analyzing the market dominance. The companies on the market have different sizes. The bigger the company, the wider its market share is. A dominant firm is one which accounts for a significant share of a given market and has a significantly larger market share than its next largest rival. Dominant firms are typically considered to have market shares of 40 percent or more.For a firm or a company, to hold a dominant position it is necessary for it to possess the capability to not be easily affected or influenced by its competitors, customers, suppliers or the final consumers who are the ultimate receivers of the products and services. Our company’s market share is equal to 39%. For a particular company to be considered a dominant, its market share needs to be more than 40% of the national market. Also, when we look at the competition when it comes to smartphone companies or technology, it is really difficult to hold 39% of the market share on the national level. Competition does not have to be excluded entirely to establish market dominance. A dominant position is not in itself anti-competitive but competition encourages companies to be efficient and to offer goods and services to the consumers at favorable prices.3. Another key to remember is that the number of company’s market share can also not be a benefit for a company. Sometimes the company’s position on the market might be a reason to overextend some limitations or lead to interpreting some of the company’s actions in a wrong way, causing some further accusations. If a company is claimed to hold the majority of a market share of a particular market, and it is considered to be dominant, it can restrict the competition. It is because it is in a position of strength on a market and other potential competitors might face some difficulties in attracting the customers and, as a result, may not succeed. A dominant position itself can not be considered as anti-competitive, but when a company uses its dominance and manipulates the market in order to eliminate the competition, it can be said that it abused it. Having said that, abusing a dominant position includes charging high prices which are unreasonable, dispossessing smaller competitors by applying artificially low prices that they can not compete with, making the sale of one product conditional of a particular product, offering special discounts for customers who buy all or the most of company’s products or turning down to dealing with certain customers, tied transactions etc. The fact that our company holds 39% of the market might influence the chances to fend off the accusation in a way that this particular market can be considered as a monopoly. When it comes to monopoly, it means that the company holds the widest market share and can individually control a particular market for a particular product or service. Since our company has a dominance in the market, it can be claimed to be the strongest and the more powerful one. In other words, this means that the accusation of participation in a cartel may be wrong. Cartels are groups of a few of dominant organizations, that work together in order to manipulate the market to their benefit. Furthermore, our company can be considered as the only one controlling production, having an influence on sales and pricing on the production. To put it in another way, a monopoly rules out a possibility of a cartel, therefore the majority of the market share and possibility of a monopolistic market can be beneficial when fending off the accusations. 4. Smartphones are devices which have two main functions. First one is to keep people connected to each other. This function is fulfilled through communication. The second function is to constantly share and send information, as well as to have the ability to access and distribute them. These days, smartphones can only be substituted with newspapers, internet services, landlines, magazines, social networking etc. since only using these sources, these two functions can be performed. Another key to remember is that currently, smartphones are available with a variety of functions such as camera, calendar, notebook etc. so any other product that specializes in any of these individual functions can be considered as a substitute. Moreover, if the buyer focuses on only one particular function, it can turn out that there is a big number of substitutes available on the market. For example, professional digital cameras can definitely take better photos than smartphones and traditional, paper organizers and notebooks are better for planning than the calendars available on the phones. Another example of substitutes for smartphones are notebooks used to browse the Internet as effectively as people can do it on smartphones. Moreover, there is only a little chance for a new company to enter the market because there are a few powerful companies on the smartphone market. Their brand, tradition, and popularity do not prevent new entrants from entering the market, but definitely, reduce the companies’ chances of becoming successful in producing new substitutes. This also reduces the potential threats of substitution. In conclusion, there are many substitutes on the market only because these days smartphones are packed with various functions which cause that new substitutes are available, but they are rather traditional and have existed before first smartphones were released. It means that the number of substitutes in an electronic form that can be equal to smartphones is little. This can be used in this case as a defense strategy. Since the threat of new substitutes is little, that can cause another assumption that our company is dominant on the market. Since it holds most of the market share and its threat of substitutes is little, we can consider this to be another proof for our company to be a monopoly. As previously said, a monopoly rules out a possibility of a cartel. These assumptions can be used to fend off the accusations of participation in a cartel and moreover, of abusing the company’s dominant position. 5. Market dominance measures the strength of a particular brand, firm, service or a product comparing them to the substitutes available on the market. A dominant firm is one which accounts for a significant share of a given market and has a significantly larger market share than its next largest rival. For a firm or a company, to hold a dominant position it is necessary for it to possess the capability to not be easily affected or influenced by its competitors, customers, suppliers or the final consumers who are the ultimate receivers of the products and services.Our company’s market share is equal to 39%. For a particular company to be considered as dominant, its market share needs to be 40% or more of the national market. However, according to the competition law and its rules, a dominant position of a company is not prohibited but the abuse of its position is prohibited. The European Union has also stated that “a company can restrict competition if it is in a position of strength on a given market. A dominant position is not in itself anti-competitive, but if the company exploits this position to eliminate competition, it is considered to have abused it.” A company may abuse its dominant position, for example by charging unreasonably high prices or by boycotting specific distributors. In addition to that, applying different prices constitutes a discriminatory abuse of dominant position.The national anti-monopoly authority has accused our company of abusing its dominant position and of a participation in a cartel (collusion). In this case, the company has been accused due to the reason of demanding from other distributors to boycott one of the distributors for his/her disobedience to the wishes, and that in our view they should be refrain from any trade with that distributor. Boycotting any distributor is considered and recognized as an abuse of the dominant position of the company by the national antimonopoly authority. The company has also been accused of a participation in the cartel (collusion). A cartel is a group of independent companies or businesses who come together to create or control monopoly, in order to prevent or reduce competition. In addition to that, cartels can be local, regional, national or international too. However, the Competition and Consumer Act wants the businesses to compete fairly instead of using different forms of cartel conduct such as price fixing, sharing markets, controlling the output or limiting the number of goods and services available to buyers. This Act not only prohibits cartels under civil law but also makes it a criminal offense for businesses and individuals to participate in a cartel. One of the most common forms of a cartel is collusion which is a secret agreement between two or more parties made to limit competition by misleading, deceiving or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.