Rethinking Unfair Competition Justifications in Brazil

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-34
Author(s):  
Juliana Krueger Pela

Abstract Curbing unfair competition is usually justified in Brazil by the need to avoid unfair trade practices. These are defined in accordance with ethical criteria for the purpose of securing the interests of competitors. This article summarizes and scrutinizes such traditional justifications for unfair competition prohibition in Brazil. It seeks to contribute to the improvement of the unfair competition rules in Brazilian law, drawing on the reflections of Reto M Hilty concerning the harmonization of European law in this area.

Author(s):  
Brealey Mark ◽  
George Kyla

This chapter discusses the principles that govern the applicable law for cases involving a breach of the competition rules. It begins with an overview of the relevant legal framework applicable to restrictive conduct since 1996, with emphasis on Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations from 11 January 2009 to date (Rome II), the Private International (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (from 1 May 1996 to 10 January 2009), and English common law principles (prior to 1 May 1996). It also considers the temporal, material, and geographical scope of Rome II, along with its special rules for determining the applicable law to ‘acts restricting free competition’, the affected market, non-compensatory remedies, and unfair competition. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the relevant principles of Rome I that govern the applicable law to contractual obligations.


2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anca D Chiriţă

AbstractThis article aims to review EU competition rules by undertaking a historical purposive interpretation of the drafting process of the Treaty of Rome. It reveals new insights based on a consideration of several historical archives starting with the Schuman plan, the Founding Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the negotiations of the Treaty of Rome. Questions of contemporary relevance are explored, relating to the goals of competition law, the historical distinction between ‘object’ and ‘effect’ under Article 101 TFEU, the possibility of an enforcement gap under Article 102 TFEU, the relationship between unfair competition and the prohibition of discrimination and, finally, the broader meaning of competitive distortions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (91) ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
V. V. Zagainov ◽  
◽  
E. V. Kuznetsov ◽  

The main legally significant features of the legal concept of “unfair competition”are considered. It is one of the forms of abuse of law, which is expressed in the illegal behavior of the subject of market relations, which by means of forms of implementation of its subjective right that are not permitted by law or contraryto business customs, creates obstacles in the exercise of its competitors ‘ business rights and (or) harms consumers. There is no consumer figure in the definition of unfair competition. If the damage is caused to them, their rights are protected by consumer legislation. Currently, there is no unified concept of “unfair competition”. In legal science and legislation, there are definitions of unfair competition, but having a common meaning, their interpretations differ significantly, generating, in turn, not only disputes in the ranks of the scientific community, but also having a significant impact on law enforcement practice. The integrity of an economic entity is manifested primarily in its lawful behavior, but when implementing civil rights in the field of competition, law enforcement officers must understand the essence and take into account each feature contained in the above concept, since, otherwise, mistakes may be made in the implementation of rights, obligations and prohibitions in the field of competitive relations in the market of goods and services. At the same time, attention is drawn to the imperfection of the legal concept, which leads to a narrowing of the scope of relations arising in the course of violation of competition rules. The latter is a circumstance that reduces the effectiveness of competition protection in the Russian Federation. In order to eliminate the identified gaps, it is proposed to make a number of changes to the competition protection legislation.


Author(s):  
Ольга Терновая ◽  
Olga Tyernovaya

The article deals with the economic and legal aspects of the legal liability for the violation of the competition rules in the doctrine and the French legislation. Particular attention is paid to the economic aspects of the legal regulation of competitive relations and the practical application of the techniques of economic analysis by the French courts in disputes related to economic supervision. The role of the Competition Council in making decisions about the presence or absence of positive economic impacts of the transaction is noted. The question of delimitation of antitrust regulation by the norms of the French Commercial Code and acts of unfair competition by the rules of the French Civil Code is researched. The formed approaches to the definition of acts of unfair competition in the doctrine are analyzed. The attention is paid to the possibility of criminal liability of legal persons for violation of the rules of competition in accordance with French law.


2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 81-86
Author(s):  
Ma Angeles Zurilla-Carinana

Directive 29/2005/EC aims at the approximation of the regulations of Member States as regards unfair trade practices, including unlawful advertising. The transposition of this Directive to the Spanish legal system was made by means of 29/2009 Act. This Act reformed a number of laws including the Unfair Competition Act and the Consolidated Text of the General Act for the Defence of Consumers and Users. The classification of conduct that is forbidden in consumer Law, as regards unfair trade practices, is made directly by the state legislative, based on its exclusive responsibility regulating Commercial Law, and specifically, through the Unfair Competition Act, to which the whole of the CTGADCU (Consolidated Text of the General Act for the Defence of Consumers and Users) refers. The reasoning behind this option of the legislative is clear: to prevent the Autonomous Regions from enforcing regulatory control over the development of the protection of consumers and users. Nevertheless, the complexity of the system for the transposition of the Directive by 29/2009 Act gives rise to truly paradoxical situations: the detailed analysis of inconsistencies involved in the transposition method used for the Directive is the main focus of this work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document