Statutory Provisions and Higher Court Interpretations

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis Kaplow
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
The U.S

This chapter examines competition law's doctrine on horizontal agreements. It begins by addressing the U.S. statute, Sherman Act Section 1. The chapter then turns to the leading Supreme Court precedents on Section 1. These are the primary source of U.S. antitrust law in general and specifically in delineating what constitutes a horizontal agreement. Here, there is more conflict than meets the eye. Finally, the corresponding provision in the European Union, Article 101, is examined. Because the underlying questions and the relevant economic theory of oligopolistic coordination are the same, it is natural to expect similar challenges to arise, and they do.

HARMFUL SIGNALS: CARTEL PROHIBITION AND OLIGOPOLY THEORY IN THE AGE OF MACHINE LEARNING

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
European Union ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Tacit Collusion ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Oligopoly Theory ◽  
Communicative Acts ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Learning Capabilities ◽  
The U.S

Abstract The traditional legal approach for distinguishing between illicit collusion and legitimate oligopoly conduct is to rely on criteria that relate to the means and form of how rivals interact, such as elements of “practical cooperation”, or on the finding of an anticompetitive intent. These criteria ultimately refer to the inner sphere of natural persons and its emanations in communicative acts. Some authors therefore conclude that the cartel prohibition of Article 101 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) or Section 1 of the U.S. Sherman Act is unable to capture collusion if it is achieved by autonomously acting computers relying on machine learning capabilities. It is instead suggested here to define collusion as parallel informational signals, which achieve a supracompetitive equilibrium, and to use the consumer welfare standard as a proxy for distinguishing between illicit collusion and legitimate oligopoly conduct. This approach is not tantamount to the idea of prohibiting tacit collusion as such. Rather, it is to check singular elements of communication, that is, “informational signals”, within an existing oligopolistic setting for their propensity to create consumer harm. This approach can help to close potential regulatory gaps currently associated with the surge of algorithmic pricing.

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).

Sensory Quality and Histamine Formation during Controlled Decomposition of Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

1996 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
EMILIO I. LÓPEZ-SABATER ◽  
JOSÉ J. RODRÍGUEZ-JEREZ ◽  
MANUELA HERNÁDEZ-HERRERO ◽  
ARTUR X. ROIG-SAGUÉS ◽  
MARIA T. MORA-VENTURA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Shelf Life ◽  
Sensory Quality ◽  
Health Hazard ◽  
Human Consumption ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Histamine Production ◽  
Histamine Formation ◽  
Hazard Levels ◽  
The U.S

Histamine production was studied during controlled tunafish decomposition at 0, 8, and 20°C. The influence of the location of the anatomic section on the amount of histamine formed and the incidence of histidine decarboxylating bacteria were also considered. By the time of sensory rejection, histamine levels in tunafish sections stored at 0 and 20°C were still below the hazard levels and the allowable levels established by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union. Toxic amounts were only formed after the tunafish was considered organoleptically unsuitable for human consumption. However, at 8°C, levels of histamine between 100 and 200 mg/l00 g of fish were found before tuna reached the rejection point. Hence, physical appearance was not a good criterion for estimating the shelf life and especially the histamine-related health hazard when tuna was stored at 8°C, a common temperature in many home refrigerators.

Trump Administration Recertifies Iranian Compliance with JCPOA Notwithstanding Increasing Concern with Iranian Behavior

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 1056-1062
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Ongoing Concern ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

In July 2015, Iran, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, and the European Union adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Pursuant to that agreement, Iran committed to limiting the scope and content of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from various nuclear-related sanctions imposed by the other signatories. By law, the U.S. State Department is required to certify Iran's compliance with the agreement every ninety days. The Trump administration first certified Iran's compliance with the agreement in April 2017, albeit reluctantly. In its first certification, the Trump administration expressed ongoing concern about Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, and repeated previous criticism of the JCPOA as “fail[ing] to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran.”

The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill—A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland [2018] UKSC 64, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
The Uk

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill—A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland [2018] UKSC 64, Supreme Court. This case is concerned with the competencies of the Scottish Parliament, and the nature of devolution in the UK more generally. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

22. A Revolution by Due Process of Law?

2021 ◽  
pp. 613-648
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process Of Law

This chapter analyses the conduct and constitutional implications of the United Kingdom’s proposed withdrawal from the European Union. The chapter begins by examining the legal basis, conduct, and result of the withdrawal referendum. The chapter then assesses the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in the first of the two Miller judgments. It continues with a discussion on the extreme positions of ‘hard brexit’ and ‘soft brexit’ and the assesses the significance of the results of the unexpected 2017 general election. The chapter goes on to examine the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the subsequent fall of the May government and its replacement by an administration led by Boris Johnson. In the final part of the chapter the Miller (No 2) and Cherry litigation and its political aftermath are discussed in full, with a particular focus laid on the controversial way in which the Supreme Court deployed the notion of ‘justiciability’ in its judgment in Miller (No 2).

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could rely on the prerogative power to issue a notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to secede from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, or whether parliamentary authorization was required. There is also a brief discussion of the Sewel Convention. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

10. Prerogative Powers

Public Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 300-332
Author(s):  
Andrew Le Sueur ◽  
Maurice Sunkin ◽  
Jo Eric Khushal Murkens
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Parliamentary System ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Legal Foundations ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

This chapter examines the meaning and the continuing significance of prerogative powers. Prerogative powers are those that were originally exercised by the Monarch before the modern parliamentary system was established. While most prerogative powers have now been replaced by statutory powers, prerogative powers remain important in some contexts, especially in relation to the conduct of the United Kingdom’s foreign affairs. In this context the decision of the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is of particular importance. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 considers the various legal foundations on which central government ministers may base their actions and compares prerogative and statutory powers. Section 3 examines prerogative power—a source of power possessed only by ministers in UK government and the monarch—in more detail. Section 4 considers the progress towards the reform of ministerial prerogatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document