What is ‘Competition Law’?—Measuring EU Member States’ Leeway to Regulate Platform-to-Business Agreements

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens-Uwe Franck ◽  
Nils Stock
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Regulatory Interventions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Hotel Booking

Abstract If both national competition law and Article 101 TFEU apply to an agreement, the former must not set rules that are stricter than the latter. Member States remain free, though, to impose stricter rules if they are not classified as ‘competition law’. We analyse relevant jurisprudence by the English and French courts that have dealt with potential conflicts between, on the one hand, EU competition law and, on the other hand, the common law restraint of trade doctrine and the pratiques restrictives de concurrence under French commercial law. We develop criteria that allow (national) ‘competition law’ to be distinguished from similar regulatory interventions into agreements that pursue purposes distinct from Article 101 TFEU and which, therefore, must not be regarded as ‘competition law’. This article illustrates and elaborates on the challenges for the implementation of our approach by focusing on the ban on the use of parity clauses by hotel booking platforms in France, Austria, Italy, and Belgium. We map a possible way forward to prevent further regulatory fragmentation in the internal market with regard to the regulation of platform-to-business agreements.

scholarly journals The Implementation of the ECN+ Directive in Hungary and Lessons Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 55-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin J. Cseres
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Institutional Aspects ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
The Eu

In order to facilitate national competition authorities (NCAs) in their application of EU competition rules, the EU legislator adopted Directive 2019/1/EU. The Directive’s aim is to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers of competition law and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. The so-called ECN+ Directive introduces minimum harmonisation rules allowing competition authorities to have common investigative, decision-making (notably fining decisions) and enforcement powers. The Directive, furthermore, sets minimum safeguards for the NCAs’ independence, accountability and resources as well as harmonizes leniency programmes including the coordination of national leniency programmes with each other and with that of the European Commission. This paper critically analyzes the legal and policy developments that paved the way for the adoption of this Directive. Moreover, it examines the changes the implementation of the Directive is likely to generate in current Hungarian law and policy of competition protection. The focus of the paper’s assessment is on the institutional aspects of the Directive and the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in particular the mechanisms for ensuring independence and accountability of the NCAs. Through the assessment of the Hungarian implementation, the paper aims to shed light on a broader context of the Directive and the enforcement of EU competition law in EU Member States. The paper shows that the implementation of the Directive may fail to translate into (more) effective enforcement without an effective institutional capacity on the side of the NCAs, and in the broader legal and constitutional context of competition law and its multilevel enforcement

Part VIII Cooperation in Antirust Enforcement, 20 Cooperation Between the Commission and the Courts of the EU Member States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holzwarth Johannes
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
National Level ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules

This chapter explores the cooperation between the European Commission and Member States’ courts that apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The risk of inconsistent interpretations of EU competition rules renders cooperation between the Commission and Member State courts crucial, particularly due to the role that such courts play when it comes to the effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU at the national level: in the era of decentralisation, it is the national courts that will ultimately be called upon to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU either directly, or when reviewing national authorities’ decisions based on those provisions. The central role that the Commission retains for the enforcement of EU competition law means that it has a particularly strong interest in ensuring effective cooperation with national courts. Moreover, the importance of cooperation between the Commission and Member State courts is further increasing due to the rise of private enforcement. This type of enforcement is generally associated with civil actions and damages awarded by national courts or tribunals.

European Union Member States and Other European Countries

2021 ◽  
pp. 307-315
Author(s):  
Jacques Ziller
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
European Union Member States

This chapter focuses on the relevance of a distinction between European Union (EU) Member States on the one hand and non-EU member states on the other when trying to identify the common core of the law regarding judicial review of administrations in Europe. It begins by looking at how EU membership impacts on the issues of substance and process in the Member States' laws of judicial review of administration. The chapter then considers how the differences and similarities between EU Member States can be interpreted. It also studies the cases of Switzerland and Ukraine in greater detail. There is very little commonality between Ukraine and Switzerland, apart from the fact that both countries are Members of the Council of Europe (CoE) and thus parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and that they are not members of the EU, which might be an especially good reason to compare them.

Health Care Services and EU Competition Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Okeoghene Odudu
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Healthcare Service ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
System Matrix ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Care Services

This chapter investigates how, within a number of European Union (EU) Member States, competition law has been used to address problems of market power in the healthcare services sector. It summarizes the relevant EU and national competition laws and considers the experience of applying those laws to providers of healthcare services. The chapter is chiefly concerned with healthcare services in England, although examples are drawn for other EU Member States. Examination of the English experience provides a view of the use of competition law to address market power problems in most elements of the health system matrix. The chapter then considers three challenges that emerge from that experience of using competition law to address problems of market power in healthcare service markets. The first challenges the applicability of competition law to healthcare service providers operating in each or every element of the healthcare system matrix. The second, accepting applicability, questions the appropriateness of the substantive rules to healthcare services. The third, a battle of authority and autonomy, considers whether decisions made by healthcare service providers should be subject to external review and the type of review that competition law offers.

scholarly journals A Note on 2015 Developments in Polish Competition Law: Is it Really a Drive Towards the European Model?

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Considerable Part ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Model ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Conscious Intention ◽  
Further Development ◽  
The Eu

Modern Polish competition law has become highly regulated and codified over the twenty five years of its existence and this article will provide readers with information relating to its recent developments of 2015. Separate subsections present a review of provisions on remedies in infringement decisions as well as settlements. A considerable part of this paper is designed to outline the peculiarities that characterize Poland’s new provisions on fines. Further on, the paper introduces readers to newest trends in the area of concentration control between undertakings. In addition, an assessment of recent developments and suggestions for a further development of Polish competition law are reviewed in the EU context. The conscious intention of the author is to analyse whether the EU competition law pattern, often regarded as a model for Member States, has been used to develop Polish competition law. Has the latter been amended to look more, or less like EU competition law? Has Polish competition law shown the capacity to absorb the best elements of EU competition law into itself? How is the outcome aligned with the declared direction of these amendments?

scholarly journals Distribution of new cars – no longer an issue for EU competition law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-383
Author(s):  
Václav Šmejkal
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
National Level ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Automotive Sector ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Car Sales ◽  
Year 2000 ◽  
Block Exemption ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Distribution cartels in the automotive sector used to be frequently dismantled and sanctioned by the European Commission and the EU Courts still some 15 years ago. In recent years, however, only a few cases have been reported at the national level of EU Member States. Is it because the distribution of new cars really ceased to be a competition problem as the European Commission declared when it removed this part of the automotive business from the specific Block Exemption Regulation for the automotive sector in 2010? The purpose of the present analysis is first to inspect the car distribution cases that emerged in the EU after the year 2000 and, second, to speculate somewhat whether new forms of distribution, brought by the digitalization of marketing and sales, cannot bring about also new risks to cartel agreements and other types of distortions of competition in car sales.

Part I EU Competition Law Private Enforcement and the Antitrust Damages Directive, 2 Promotion and Harmonization of Antitrust Damages Claims by Directive 2014/104/EU?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodger Barry ◽  
Ferro Miguel Sousa ◽  
Marcos Francisco
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Member States ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Eu Competition Law

This chapter explains the contents and goals of the Antitrust Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU), the corollary of the EU’s policy towards the promotion and facilitation of private enforcement of competition law. It first traces the evolution in EU competition law enforcement and policy that led to the adoption of the Directive before considering the goals of the Directive in more detail, namely to provide rules for the effective compensation of victims of antitrust infringements and to harmonize some rules concerning damages claims. It then examines the Directive’s legal basis under EU Law as well as substantive provisions, including those relating to compensatory principles, quantification of harm, and consensual dispute resolution. The chapter goes on to highlight neglected issues, limitations, and inherent biases regarding the scope and nature of the Directive’s rules and concludes with an analysis of issues arising from implementation of the Directive in Member States.

5. The legal framework

2021 ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
Mergers And Acquisitions ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Monopoly Power ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Restraint Of Trade ◽  
The Eu

‘The legal framework’ outlines the key competition provisions currently in the US and EU. Like in most other jurisdictions, EU and US laws include competition provisions that are used to address antitrust violations such as anti-competitive agreements or abuse of monopoly power. They also include laws dealing with proposed mergers and acquisitions. The US Antitrust Law prohibits contracts and agreements between two or more individuals or entities in restraint of trade or commerce. Meanwhile, EU competition law prohibits agreements between ‘undertakings’ that have, as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and affect trade between the EU member states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document