Had three Italian companies that together held 90% Market share in Italian market of flat glass. Companies charged identical prices and maintained identical conditions of sale. Commission investigated and adopted a decision where it took the view that there were two concurrent breaches of art 101 and art 102. According to Commission, was breach of 101 because companies had colluded to fix prices and conditions of sale. Breach of 102 because according to commission the companies were jointly dominant and had abused their position of dominance, had engaged in practices that amounted to abuse. General Court, then court of first instance, annulled commission decision on art 101 point, by stating that commission failed to produce sufficient evidence of concerted practice. On art 102 point Court refused to accept that there had been abuse of dominant position, BUT, crucially, court defined what a position of joint dominance is, that is the REAL importance of case.