Competition Law in the Western World: Legal Framework in European and American Jurisdictions

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sankalp Jain
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Western World

scholarly journals The Evolution of Classical Evaluation Standards in Competition Law: The Legal Assessment of Tying in View of Challenges Raised by Digital Markets

2021 ◽  
pp. 113-139
Author(s):  
Mateusz Musielak
Keyword(s):  
Technological Development ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Customer Group ◽  
Type Of Abuse ◽  
Modern Tool

This paper provides a detailed review of evaluation standards for the legal assessment of tying. This practice, which constitutes an abuse of a dominant position, is a significant breach of competition law. The mechanism of this type of abuse is based on taking advantage of market power in the supply of one product to create packed offerings capable of precluding competition from superior rival solutions. Tying occurs when one product, the “tying product”, is sold only with another product, the “tied product”. In the prevailing number of cases, tying serves to consolidate the company’s dominant position on the tied product market, which usually aims to share the tying product’s large customer group with the less-desired product. However, tying is not illegal per se. In many cases, it does not lead to any anti-competitive concerns, and might be beneficial for consumers. This is why each assessment of this conduct must be carefully evaluated with special attention given to the effects, in accordance with the generally applied effect-based approach, and also potential efficiencies. An analysis of the case-law and literature reveals the basic mechanisms for conducting a legal assessment of tying. However, the use of these mechanisms will not be possible without their adaptation to the ongoing changes caused by technological development. Digital markets not only generate incremental revenues, but are also the sources of new or unusual legal arrangements. It will more frequently be the case that existing provisions will not be able to address every new practice accurately without new acts. The Digital Markets Act aims to adapt the existing legal framework to contemporary market realities and to become a modern tool for enforcing competition law rules on digital markets. The European Commission is seeking to broaden its powers to intervene at the earliest possible stage, before an undertaking affects the competition on a market.

8 The Law And Economics Of Vertical Restraints

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geradin Damien ◽  
Layne-Farrar Anne ◽  
Petit Nicolas
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Vertical Restraints ◽  
Economic Approach ◽  
Brand Competition ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Early Case ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Independent Distribution

This chapter examines independent distribution and how it is treated under EU competition law. Since the 1960s, it is acknowledged that vertical agreements can entail restrictions of competition—generally called ‘vertical restraints’—which deserve competition law scrutiny. While the early case law and Regulations adopted in the field focused primarily on restrictions of intra-brand competition, a more liberal and economic approach was introduced with the promulgation of Regulation 2790/1999. The new legal framework rested on a basic economic premise: the ability of a vertical agreement to produce anticompetitive effects hinges predominantly on the market power of the parties to the agreement. With the expiry of Regulation 2790/1999 on 31 May 2010, but also with the growth of large retailers throughout Europe and the rise of internet distribution, the Commission initiated a review process in July 2009 which culminated in the adoption of Regulation 330/2010 and of a new set of Guidelines.

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.

Privilegierungen im Internet

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenz W. Jarass
Keyword(s):  
Market Economy ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Competitive Market ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Economic Foundations ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu

As product differentiations, privileges on the internet (such as "zero rating" or "specialised services") are a result of the competitive market economy. However, in the discourse on net neutrality, in the sense of indiscriminate treatment of data, there are calls for regulation as the existing legal framework is considered as inadequate. Based on the conceptual, technical, legal, political and economic foundations, the thesis nevertheless shows that general competition law, in particular Article 102 TFEU, p is a suitable and adequate legal framework. Even after the adoption of Regulation 2015/2120/EU ("Open Internet"), this finding has not lost its relevance. Rather, the thesis describes how both regimes interact, and for which cases a recourse to general competition law is indicated.

scholarly journals Information exchanges between competitors from a competition law perspective – the problem of premature exchanges of sensitive information in the context of merger control (Gun Jumping)

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-101
Author(s):  
Nuno Calaim Lourenço
Keyword(s):  
Specific Problem ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Market Transparency ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Competition Rules

The topic of information exchanges between competing undertakings is central to competition law. These are practices that enhance market transparency and, as such, can generate significant efficiencies. However, they can also give rise to serious competition concerns, often because they afford competitors the possibility of reaching focal points of coordination. The analysis of information exchanges has traditionally taken place in the context of the legal framework that prohibits cartels. This article reviews, at first, the approach taken in Europe by competition authorities and courts, firmly grounded in the Commission Guidelines and in the most recent case law of the European Court of Justice. After discussing the relevant legal framework and the main criteria for the assessment of information exchanges in detail, the article elaborates on the specific problem that premature exchanges of information between competitors can create in the context of a merger transaction. As the competitors that they are, at least until closing of the deal, it is essential that contracting parties ensure that their due diligence exercise and the planning of the integration of their businesses are carried out in a manner that is consistent with competition rules, avoiding behaviour that can be interpreted as gun-jumping or as a cartel practice and, as a consequence, financial penalties and judicial claims.

Protection of Unregistered Distinctive Signs within Unfair Competition Law: the Polish Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-27
Author(s):  
Łukasz Żelechowski
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Unfair Competition Law ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Market Practices ◽  
Polish Law

Abstract The protection of unregistered distinctive signs is essentially non-standardised at the international and EU level. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the legal framework relating to the protection of trade names, unregistered trade marks and geographical indications from the perspective of Polish law in which protection of unregistered distinctive signs is predominantly available based on unfair competition law. The analysis takes account of the respective EU legislation, notably the Unfair Market Practices Directive and its impact on combatting unfair competition caused by use of distinctive signs under Polish law, as well as interactions with the national and EU legislation in other areas such as trade mark law and the protection of registered designations of origin and geographical indications. Comparative remarks are occasionally included. The paper also examines the issue of the nature of civil law protection of unregistered distinctive signs under Polish unfair competition law, which is the subject of divergent views among Polish scholars. With regard to the perplexing question of whether provisions of unfair competition law could constitute a basis for distinguishing exclusive rights to unregistered distinctive signs or whether they provide ‘merely’ tortious protection that does not presuppose the existence and infringement of such rights, this paper puts forward arguments in support of the latter qualification.

Article 101 TFEU’s Association of Undertakings Notion and Its Surprising Potential to Help Distinguish Acceptable from Unacceptable Algorithmic Collusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Promising Tool ◽  
Learning Capabilities ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

The machine learning capabilities of new technologies raise provocative questions and challenges for the development of competition law within the digital economy. Academic discussions have focused on how antitrust law should avoid, anticipate, and respond to such behavior. The predominant emerging narrative is that antitrust law, in its current form, is unable to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable algorithmic collusion. The purpose of this article is to challenge that claim in the context of Article 101 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). The reference within Article 101 TFEU to “associations of undertakings” plays a crucial role in that regard and offers a promising tool to better identify and regulate forms of unacceptable algorithmic collusion. Against that background, this article will propose an alternative compliance-focused way forward that could be set up without requiring modifications to the EU legal framework.

scholarly journals Grounds for Private Enforcement of Albanian Competition Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (13) ◽  
pp. 61-76
Author(s):  
Ermal Nazifi ◽  
Petrina Broka
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Procedures

Infringements of competition law can cause serious harm to both consumers and undertakings. Aside from the development of public enforcement of competition law, much focus has been placed in recent years in the European Union on private competition law enforcement. Lawsuits raised by undertakings that sustained damages from anti-competitive practice concerning the compensation of such damages have historically not been widespread in Europe. No such cases have been recorded in Albania at all yet, despite the fact that its competition protection legislation has provided this possibility since 1995. The main causes of the lack of private competition law enforcement in Albania include the absence of judicial practice and doctrinal approaches in this area. Relevant here is also the inability of Albanian businesses and consumers to react to competition protection cases as they still lack competition law knowledge and as a result of the absence of an appropriate legal framework for class actions. The scope of this article is to analyze the current situation of private competition law enforcement in Albania. The paper emphasizes the current legal framework including existing obstacles to private competition law enforcement and improvements that should be introduced in the context of its competition law, the law of civil procedures and the law of obligations.

5 Jurisdiction

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brealey Mark ◽  
George Kyla
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The Body ◽  
High Court ◽  
Standard Of Proof

This chapter considers the legal framework for determining the applicable jurisdiction in claims based on breaches of competition law. It first describes the difficulties in determining the applicable jurisdiction when commencing proceedings, the body of jurisdictional rules used in competition law cases, the standard of proof to determine jurisdiction, when courts determine jurisdiction, the date on which jurisdiction is determined, and how jurisdiction of a court to hear a claim affects the claim’s admissibility. The discussion then turns to the jurisdictional rules applied by the High Court and the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for EU defendants and non-EU defendants, with emphasis on the relevant provisions of the Judgments Regulation. The chapter concludes with a summary of the English common law jurisdictional rules that continue to apply outside the scope of the Judgments Regulation and which therefore applies to non-EU defendants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document