Delimitation of the Respective Competences of the Commission and National Competition Authorities with Regard to the Application of Competition Law. Case Comment to the Preliminary Ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 February 2012 Toshiba Corporation and Others V ad Pro Ochranu Hospodddskk Souttte (Case C-17/10)

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maagorzata Sieradzka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Competition

“UMBRELLA EFFECTS” AND PRIVATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 510-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Dunne
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Right

UMBRELLA effects arise where anti-competitive conduct by one or more market actors results in general price rises across the sector concerned. The Court of Justice of the European Union has, with its preliminary ruling in Case C-557/12, Kone and others v OBB-Infrastruktur AG, Judgment of 5 June 2014, EU:C:2014:1317, now addressed the potential legal implications of such umbrella effects. In confirming that the right to compensation stemming from breach of EU competition law extends to umbrella claims as a matter of principle, the Court of Justice has offered its most expansive, and arguably most emphatic, interpretation of the scope and importance of private antitrust enforcement to date.

scholarly journals PAY-FOR-DELAY AGREEMENTS UNDER EU COMPETITION LAW – A COMMENT ON PAROXETINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-178
Author(s):  
João Pateira Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Generic Manufacturer ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Settlement Agreements

Summary The Court of Justice of the European Union (“Court of Justice”) issued its first ruling on pay-for-delay agreements, in reply to a reference for a preliminary ruling from the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) during its review of the appeal of a Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) decision applying a fine to GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) and five generic manufacturers for having entered into agreements settling patent disputes relating to GSK’s antidepressant paroxetine, on the basis that such agreements infringed competition rules. In its Paroxetine ruling of 30 January 2020[1], the Court of Justice found that patent settlements are not, by their very nature, anticompetitive; however, generic manufacturers can be regarded as potential competitors to the originator manufacturers when they have announced their intention to compete in the same market as the originator and, as such, patent settlement agreements are to be reviewed as horizontal agreements between competitors. Finally, a payment from the originator to the generic manufacturer in a patent settlement agreement is not enough to qualify such an agreement as a restriction of competition by object (the agreement is not anticompetitive by its very nature), unless there is no other justification for the payment other than to compensate the generic manufacturer for accepting to delay its entry in the market. In those circumstances, the Court finds that such an agreement will constitute a restriction of competition by object[2]. In this comment, we review the Court’s findings in relation to the issue of potential competition between the originator and the generics manufacturers and the qualification of this agreement as a restriction of competition by object. Keywords: pay-for-delay; restriction; competition; agreement; settlement; patent

scholarly journals The challenges of regulating and enforcing competition law (Bucharest 14-15 November 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-103
Author(s):  
Ondrej Blažo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Scientific Conference ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
The European Union ◽  
High Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Competition ◽  
National Competition Authority

On 14 – 15 November 2019, the Faculty of Law of the Bucharest University, particularly the Centre of Competition Law Studies, and the Competition Council of Romania co-organized the interna- tional scientific conference “The Challenges of Regulating and Enforcing Competition Law”. The conference’s scientific committee led by Adriana Almăşan put together senior scholars affiliated with universities of fourteen European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hun- gary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), the judge of the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the president of the Competition Council of Romania (Romanian national competition authority) to discuss challenges and limits of substantive and procedural competition law. The conference was held in Aula Magna of the Bucharest University with more than 300 registered participants. The conference was split into the introductory panel, seven panels (not strictly focused only on one issue) and the conference was followed by the seminar for judges from the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Courts of Appeal.

Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Salim S. Sleiman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Brussels Regulation

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

The Google Ireland Case and the Legal Battle over Digital Taxes in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-220
Author(s):  
Giulio Allevato ◽  
Fernando Pastor-Merchante
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Topical Issue ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Battle ◽  
The Way

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Google Ireland case turned on the compatibility with the rules on free movement of some of the administrative arrangements put in place by Hungary in order to administer its controversial advertisement tax (namely, the obligation to register and the penalties attached to the failure to comply with that obligation). The preliminary ruling offers some interesting insights on the way in which the Court assesses the compatibility with the freedom to provide services of national administrative arrangements aimed at ensuring the effective collection of taxes. This is a topical issue in the context of the recent efforts made by Member States to tax the digital economy more effectively.

Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Instituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) Comune di Genova

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Author(s):  
Bjarney Friðriksdóttir
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

Abstract This case report provides an account of the issues addressed in the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in Martinez Silva vs. Italy. The case centres on the limitations Member States of the European Union are permitted to apply in granting third-country nationals in employment equal treatment with nationals in social security rights according to Directive 2011/98/EU (the Single Permit Directive). Additionally, the preliminary ruling of the Court is discussed is discussed in the context of the human rights principle of equal treatment as it is enshrined in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and International Labour Law.

scholarly journals Support Schemes in Renewable Energy: Commentary to Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017, ENEA S.A. v. Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-183
Author(s):  
Nevin Alija
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Environmentally Friendly ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Penalty ◽  
The Eu

In its September 13th 2017 decision,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) in proceedings between ENEA S.A. (ENEA) and the president of the Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Office for the regulation of energy, URE) on the imposition by the latter of a financial penalty on ENEA for breach of its obligation to supply electricity produced by cogeneration. The judgment of the Court of Justice follows many decisions of the European Commission and judgments of the EU courts assessing the involvement of State resources in support schemes in energy, particularly with the aim of switching towards more environmentally friendly sources. This case reaffirms that support schemes may, in certain circumstances, fall outside the scope of the EU State aid rules.

3. The relationship between European Union and United Kingdom competition law

2019 ◽  
pp. 57-75
Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Current Interaction ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the current interaction between European Union and UK law. EU law is currently a source of UK law. However, the relationship between the two regimes is expected to change in the future as a consequence of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 stipulates that the European Communities Act 1972 will be ‘repealed on exit day’, which would be 29 March 2019 provided that the two-year period since Article 50 TEU was triggered is not extended. Once the European Communities Act 1972 has been repealed, EU law will cease to be a source of UK law. No major immediate changes to the national competition legislation are to be expected, but future reforms could distance the UK system from the EU rules.

40. References to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 443-447
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
English Court ◽  
Court Of Justice

An English court faced with a question of EU law may sometimes decide it itself, or may refer it to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling. If a reference is made, the English proceedings will be stayed pending the ruling of the CJEU. Once it is made, the ruling is binding on the English court, but it is only a preliminary ruling, in that the English court is left to apply the ruling to the facts of the case and to give judgment. This chapter discusses the questions which may be referred to the CJEU; mandatory references; discretionary references; procedures in England; procedure in the CJEU; and costs of the parties in seeking a ruling from the CJEU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document