A refusal to grant access to a grid within the provision of crude oil transfer services as an example of a prohibited abuse of a dominant position in the EU and Polish competition law

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Paweł SZYDŁO
Keyword(s):  
Crude Oil ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Effective Competition ◽  
Oil Pipelines ◽  
Transfer Services ◽  
The Eu

Aim: The paper discusses cases in which a refusal by an energy enterprise to connect other enterprises to the network is treated as a prohibited abuse of the enterprise's dominant position and, equally, will represent behavior prohibited by art. 12 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and by art. 9 par. 2 item 2 of the Competition and Consumer Protection Law as well as legal consequences of such refusal. It is important to pinpoint such cases since the EU sectoral regulation does not provide for obligating any undertakings which manage and operate oil pipelines to enter into contracts with other undertakings such as contracts on connecting into their network or contracts on providing crude oil transfer services. Conditions for accessing oil pipelines and selling their transfer capacities are determined by the owners of the networks: private oil companies in the countries across which the pipelines are routed. These conditions are not governed by the EU law.  Furthermore, the very obligation of connecting other entities to own network by energy undertakings operating in the oil transfer sector in Poland will only arise from generally applicable provisions of the Polish competition law.  Design / Research methods: The purpose of the paper has been reached by conducting a doctrinal analysis of relevant provisions of Polish and EU law and an analysis of guidelines issued by the EU governing bodies. Furthermore, the research included the functional analysis method which analyses how law works in practice. Conclusions / findings: The deliberations show that a refusal to access the network will be a manifestation of a prohibited abuse of a dominant position and will be a prohibited action always when the dominant's action is harmful in terms of the allocation effectiveness. It will be particularly harmful when delivery of goods or services objectively required for effective competition on a lower level market, a discriminatory refusal which leads to elimination of an effective competition on the consequent market, a refusal leading to unfair treatment of consumers and an unjustified refusal. Originality / value of the article: The paper discusses the prerequisites which trigger the obligation to connect entities to own network by energy undertakings operating in the oil transfer sector. The obligation has a material impact on the operations of the oil transmitting undertakings, in particular on those who dominate the market. The regulatory bodies in the competition sector may classify a refusal of access to own network by other enterprises as a prohibited abuse of the dominant position, exposing such undertakings to financial consequences.Implications of the research: The research results presented in the paper may be used in decisions issued by the President of the OCCP and in judgement of Polish civil courts and EU courts. This may cause a significant change in the approach to classifying prohibited practices to prohibited behavior which represent abuse of the dominant position. The deliberations may also prompt the Polish and EU legislator to continue works on the legislation.

scholarly journals “Anti-competition agreements” and legal options to pursue claims for damages before common courts

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Paweł Szydło
Keyword(s):  
Power Transmission ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Effective Competition ◽  
Oil Pipelines ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position ◽  
Energy Companies ◽  
Dominant Activity ◽  
The Eu

Aim: In the article the situation is discussed where the refusal by an energy supplier to connect other companies to join the network, will be treated (in Poland and the EU) as a prohibited abuse of a dominant position by this company. The identification of such practices is important because EU sectoral legislation does not contain specific provisions requiring companies managing and operating oil pipelines to conclude agreements with other companies to join their networks or to deliver oil.Design / Research methods: The aim of the article was achieved through doctrinal analysis of the relevant Polish and EU law and by analyzing guidelines issued by EU bodies. In the study, also functional analysis is applied, allowing to examine the functioning of the law.Conclusions / findings: Access to oil pipelines and the sale of their transmission capacity are determined by the network owners themselves. These owners are private oil companies, not being regulated by European Union law. The obligation to connect other entities to its own network by power transmission companies in Poland results only from the general provisions of Polish competition law. It is shown that refusal to access the network is a manifestation of prohibited abuse of dominant position, which is prohibited whenever the dominant activity is detrimental to allocation efficiency. In particular this concerns the case when the supply of goods or services objectively necessary for effective competition on the market in general is denied, and leads to the elimination of effective competition in the market and/or harm to consumers.Originality / value of the article: The article discusses the reasons for the legal obligation for energy companies involved in the transmission of crude oil to connect other companies into their own network. This obligation significantly influences the business conducted by the transmission companies.Implications of the research: The presented research results are useful for assessing decisions issued by the President of UOKiK (the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) and in the judgments of Polish common courts and EU courts.

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.

Part I EU Competition Law Private Enforcement and the Antitrust Damages Directive, 1 Damages Actions in the Enforcement of EU Competition Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodger Barry ◽  
Ferro Miguel Sousa ◽  
Marcos Francisco
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Traditional Role ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Eu

This chapter sets the context for the EU’s Antitrust Damages Directive of 2014 in order to understand its significance and potential impact. It first provides a historical background to EU competition law before discussing its public enforcement, focusing on the traditional role of the European Commission in enforcing the EU competition law rules. It then considers developments in EU law private enforcement, citing the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and European Commission in seeking to promote and facilitate private enforcement, particularly damages actions. It also examines the experience of damages actions in the EU, the issue of collective redress, the US antitrust private enforcement context and experience, and EU private international law rules and their significance for raising damages actions across the Member States’ courts. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the development of competition law damages actions under EU law.

EU Law Concentrate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Eu

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. EU Law Concentrate provides essential information on all aspects of EU law, starting with the origins, institutions, and sources of law in the EU. It then moves on to consider supremacy, direct and indirect effect, and state liability. Chapter 4 looks at direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 are examined in detail. The next couple of chapters describe the free movement of goods and persons. The book ends with a consideration of EU Competition law, in particular Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

2. The Competition Law and Institutions of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter sketches the history of the EU and its institutions in order to set the competition rules in context. It then discusses the competition provisions themselves, and explains the way in which those rules are applied and enforced. The EU competition rules are primarily contained in Title VII, Chapter 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The two main competition articles are Article 101 TFEU, which applies to agreements between undertakings, and Article 102, which applies to the conduct of undertakings in a ‘dominant position’. Articles 101 and 102 are supplemented by Article 106 (public undertakings and undertakings with special or exclusive rights), and by articles concerned with powers and procedures.

scholarly journals STRATEGIC ROLE OF OIL PIPELINES IN EU ENERGY SUPPLY

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-41
Author(s):  
Gordana Sekulić ◽  
Dragan Kovačević ◽  
Damir Vrbić ◽  
Vladislav Veselica ◽  
Dominik Kovačević
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Crude Oil ◽  
Energy Supply ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Oil Pipeline ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Oil Supply ◽  
Oil Pipelines ◽  
Central Eastern ◽  
And Storage

The oil pipelines have a strategic importance in the energy supply of the European Union (EU), especially given the fact that in the next two decades the crude oil will continue to be a dominant energy source, accounting for approx. 30% of the primary energy consumption, along with a reduction in the petroleum product consumption and growth in renewables. Europe has a widespread network of oil pipelines of approx. 22,5 thousand kilometres (without Russia), connecting refineries to import oil ports or to land-based crude oil sources. The refineries of the Central Eastern Europe are supplied mainly from the Druzhba oil pipeline. Recently, these refineries have diversified their crude oil supply routes and sources, by sea imports from the North Sea, the Middle East, Canada and others (Poland) or by the TAL – IKL oil pipelines (Czech Republic) and the JANAF oil pipeline (Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic). Given the insufficient diversification of crude oil supply precisely of the Central Eastern European region, particularly the landlocked countries (and refineries respectively), the EU has envisaged, among the projects of common interests, also six connection oil pipelines with terminals. At the same time, they are the only pipelines planned to be constructed in Europe and financed by the oil companies’ funds. The oil pipeline and storage companies, as well as other oil companies, have a social responsibility as regards the energy supply, yet also a responsibility as regards their successful performance and development, thus investing considerable funds into modernisations, upgrades, protection, safety and security, etc. The oil pipeline companies hastily modify their strategies by expanding business and becoming more and more transport-storage-energy oriented, and by investing in the flow reversal of oil pipelines and connection pipelines, storage capacities, as well as in enhancement of efficiency and flexibility of oil pipeline and storage infrastructures.

A Union of Peoples

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rival Theory ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
The Eu

This book offers a legal and political theory of the European Union. Many political and legal philosophers compare the EU to a federal union. They believe that its basic laws should be subject to the standards of constitutional law. They thus find it lacking or incomplete. This book offers a rival theory. If one looks more closely at the treaties and the precedents of the European courts, one sees that the substance of EU law is international, not constitutional. Just like international law, it applies primarily to the relations between states. It binds domestic institutions directly only when the local constitutions allow it. The member states have democratically chosen to adapt their constitutional arrangements in order to share legislative and executive powers with their partners. The legal architecture of the European Union is thus best understood under a theory of dualism and not pluralism. According to this internationalist view, EU law is part of the law of nations and its distinction from domestic law is a matter of substance, not form. This arrangement is supported by a cosmopolitan theory of international justice, which we may call progressive internationalism. The EU is a union of democratic peoples, that freely organize their interdependence on the basis of principles of equality and reciprocity. Its central principles are not the principles of a constitution, but cosmopolitan principles of accountability, liberty, and fairness,

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

scholarly journals Polish “Entrepreneur” and EU “Undertaking”: Multilingualism and Differences in Legal Identification

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Maciej Etel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Precise Determination ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Legal Identification ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Union and its member-states’ involvement in the economic sphere, manifesting itself in establishing the rules of entrepreneurs’ functioning – their responsibilities and entitlements – requires a precise determination of the addressees of these standards. Proper identification of an entrepreneur is a condition of proper legislation, interpretation, application, control and execution of the law. In this context it is surprising that understanding the term entrepreneur in Polish law and in EU law is not the same, and divergences and differences in identification are fundamental. This fact formed the objective of this article. It is aimed at pointing at key differences in the identification of an entrepreneur between Polish and EU law, explaining the reasons for different concepts, and also the answer to the question: May Poland, as an EU member-state, identify the entrepreneur in a different way than the EU?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document