In this article I look at the legal notion of pre–existing collective dominance (PCD) following the Impala case. More particularly, I examine the theory of indirect proof of the Airtours criterion and analyse the implications it has on the test of pre–existing collective dominance (PCD test). I argue that this theory offers an alternative yet behavioural avenue for the Commission to establish the existence of a position of PCD. Yet a behavioural PCD test need not be easier to enforce, and can blur the line that separates the existence of PCD from instances of Article 82’s abusive conduct.
World Competition