Case Studies Akzo Chemie BV v Commission [1991] ECR I-3359 In year 1928, ECS submitted a complaint to Commission against AKZO for infringing Article 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty (presently Article 101 and 102 of TFEU). ECS accused AKZO for abusing its dominant position in the market on selling "organic peroxides" in United Kingdom and Ireland. At that point, there were only three suppliers in the UK and Ireland market for selling organic peroxides: AKZO UK (55% share), ECS (30% share) and Diaflex (15% share). Also, Diaflex was dependent on AKZO for raw material, concentrated benzoyl peroxide. The price quotations made by Diaflex were thus not really competitive and were in fact solicited by AKZO. In the year 1979, ECS began to expand its business into larger markets already dominated by AKZO and captured BASF which was AKZO 's one of the major customers. ECS offered a price significantly less than AKZO. However, ECS alleged that AKZO started threatening ECS 's core operations in UK. ECS contended that AKZO used "a policy of selective and below-cost price-cutting" method to exclude ECS from the market competition. AKZO was itself dominant with 50% share in the market for organic peroxides which they sold as flour additive. AKZO 's pricing tactics continued even after the Commission 's investigation. Therefore, ECS had a risk of going into liquidation as its sales of bromide mix dropped by 50% and benzyl peroxide by 25%. “The value of ECS flour additives sales in the United