The “essential facilities” doctrine in ec competition law

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-499
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors-Llorens
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Essential Facility ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ec Competition Law

INOscar Bronner GmbH&Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH&Co. KG and others (Case C-7/97, [1999] 4 C.M.L.R. 112), the European Court of Justice has clarified the scope of the application of the “essential facilities” doctrine to EC competition law. The Commission defined an “essential facility” as a “facility or infrastructure without access to which competitors cannot provide services to their customers” (B&I Line plc v. Sealink Harbours Ltd., Commission Decision of 11 June 1992, [1992] 5 C.M.L.R. 255 at paragraph 41). Under the doctrine, a dominant undertaking that owns or controls such a facility and refuses, without an objective justification, to make it available to competitors–or makes it available on discriminatory terms–abuses its position of dominance.

scholarly journals Generalities on legal regulation of cartel agreements

2021 ◽  
pp. 92-99
Author(s):  
Dumitrita Bologan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Academic Environment ◽  
European Directives ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Republic

This article provides an overview of the evolution of competition and competition law, both in the Republic of Moldova and in some European and US countries. Also, the paper crystallizes the conceptual approaches on cartels and offers an analysis of the doctrine of the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, France, Germany, USA, Great Britain regarding cartel agreements. Following the analysis carried out in this paper, it was observed that the contribution of foreign academics in the field of defining and classifying cartel agreements is substantial, and the jurisprudence of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice has served as a source of inspiration and progress for the academic environment, as well as for the development of competition on the market. Although in the Republic of Moldova there is limited research in the field of cartel agreements, it is gratifying that the legislation is harmonized with European directives, and the doctrine is developed starting from the most important international research in the field of protection of competition.

scholarly journals Compulsory membership of pension schemes and the free movement of services in the EU

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans van Meerten ◽  
Elmar Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Pension Funds ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Pension Schemes ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Mandatory Participation ◽  
The Eu

Mandatory pension participation in the Netherlands is currently under review. This article examines the manner in which the system of mandatory participation in sectoral pension funds is presently organised as well as future proposals from the perspective of the freedom to provide services. It also briefly reviews mandatory participation in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France and Sweden and asks whether it constitutes a barrier to the freedom enshrined in Article 56 TFEU. Restrictions of this freedom in the field of mandatory participation are too easily excused in the Netherlands by pointing to decisions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in which it judged the system to be permissible. These decisions, however, were made from the perspective of competition law, and not on the basis of Article 56 TFEU. Grounds for justifying restrictions to this freedom exist, although different justifications are available for direct and indirect discrimination. The article questions how mandatory participation in the Member States considered in this article fare from this perspective?

The Interface Between Competition Law and Private Law: Article 81, Illegality and Unjustified Enrichment

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-243
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
General Question ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Private enforcement through private party litigation is to play a central role in the enforcement of the European Community competition rules. However, there has so far been little case-law in the national courts to explore in detail the range of issues concerning the award of remedies for breach of the competition rules, principally arts 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This article considers the particular position of a cocontractor seeking to claim damages in unjustified enrichment in respect of a contract which is prohibited by art 81 and illegal. The Scots law position on the general question of recovery of damages with regard to an illegal contract is discussed, together with some recent English cases involving a breach of art 81. The article looks at the development of Community jurisprudence laying down the requirement for national courts to provide legal redress and to ensure the effectiveness of Community law. Finally, it considers the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in Courage v Crehan on a reference from the Court of Appeal.

The European Court of Justice and the More Economic Approach to EU Competition Law—Is the Tide Turning?

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne C. Witt
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Eu Competition Policy ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
More Economic Approach

In the late 1990s, the European Commission embarked on a mission to bring EU competition policy more into line with contemporary economic theory. Over a period of ten years, it systematically revised key legal concepts of all three pillars of EU competition law. Most importantly, it adopted the consumer welfare aim, revised its understanding of competitive harm and countervailing effects accordingly, and committed itself to carrying out more in-depth assessments of the investigated conduct’s effects instead of relying on form-based presumptions of illegality. Initially, many tenets of the more economic approach were in conflict with the case law of the European Court of Justice, which had a broader understanding of the aims of EU competition law. However, after a few initial set-backs for the Commission, several recent judgments in cases such as MEO, Intel, Post Danmark I, and Cartes Bancaires suggest that the Court’s understanding of EU competition law is evolving and that it is willing to embrace at least a few of the Commission’s revised principles. In particular, it is adopting a more effects-based approach to assessing business conduct and is cautiously curbing its former concept of harm in exclusionary situations. At the same time, however, it continues to adhere to many of its former freedom- and fairness-based principles, so that a number of uncertainties and inconsistencies remain.

Risk assessment in technical legislation: what are the limits to the Commission's discretion under comitology?

2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 293-317
Author(s):  
Tim Maxian Rusche ◽  
Karola Maxianova
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rohs Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Regulatory Procedure

AbstractBy its judgment of 1 April 2008, the European Court of Justice annuls Commission Decision 2005/717/EC exempting deca BDE from the use restriction under the ROHS Directive 2002/95/EC. The Court states that by not complying with the formal conditions of Article 5 (1) (b) of the Directive, the Commission exceeded its implementing powers. As the Court finds that the Commission failed to respect these formal conditions, it does not need to address the pleas of the applicants relating to more fundamental questions regarding risk assessment and risk management under comitology. The authors put this judgment in the broader context of risk regulation on both sides of the Atlantic, and close with an outlook on risk regulation under the new comitology rules introducing regulatory procedure with scrutiny.

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document