Is “Privacy” a Means to Protect the Competition or Advance Objectives of Innovation and Consumer Welfare?

Author(s):  
Arletta Gorecka

The relationship between competition law and privacy is still seen as problematic with academics and professionals trying to adequately assess the impact of privacy on the competition law sphere. The chapter looks at the legal development of the EU merger proceedings to conclude that EU competition law is based on the prevailing approach and assesses decisions involving data through the spectrum of keeping a competitive equilibrium in hypothetical markets. Secondly, it considers the legal developments in the EU Member States' practice, which acknowledges the apparent intersection between the phenomena of competition law and privacy. This chapter attempts to propose that privacy concerns appear to hold a multidimensional approach on competition legal regime; nevertheless, it does not result in the need of legal changes within the remits of competition law, as the privacy concerns are already protected by the data protection and consumer protection law.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
ALENA ANDREJOVSKÁ ◽  
VERONIKA KONEČNÁ ◽  
JANA HAKALOVÁ

VAT is one of the most decisive tax revenues sources in the EU Member States. Due to financial frauds and insufficient tax system, there is a billion loss of EUR every year in the European budget. The article deals with the impact of the tax evasion on economies of the EU Member States. By applying the top-down approach, we observed tax gaps as a quantifier of tax evasion from 2004 to 2017. The period around the economic crisis in 2009 was examined in more detail, as there was a sharp change in the evolution of tax gaps. We constructed a regression model, which examined the relationship of the tax gap and VAT tax revenues to selected determinants of tax evasion. The results showed that tax gaps in the Member States have been growing every year. We also found that there is an increase in tax revenues, but tax liabilities increase to greater extent.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-383
Author(s):  
Václav Šmejkal

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.


Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi

‘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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 55-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin J. Cseres

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


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-88
Author(s):  
Noel Beale ◽  
Paschalis Lois

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement broadly sets out the nature of the relationship contemplated between UK and EU competition law and policy following Brexit. The question is whether the UK will capitalize on its newfound discretion to deviate its competition policy from the EU in the future. This article considers some of the potential new directions that might be taken within the UK's competition law landscape, specifically in relation to merger control, antitrust and subsidy control. It explores some of the problems and opportunities created in the wake of Brexit, as well as the legal and practical ramifications of future divergences between UK and EU competition policy. Furthermore, it considers how the Competition and Markets Authority may fare in enforcing new policy, as well as its potential interactions with regimes both within and outside the EU.


Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter provides a brief overview of EU and UK competition law and the institutions involved in formulating, interpreting and applying competition law. It also explains the relationship between EU competition law and the domestic competition laws of the Member States, in particular in the light of Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003. The rules of the European Economic Area are briefly referred to, and the trend on the part of Member States to adopt domestic competition rules modelled on those in the EU is also noted. Three diagrams at the end of the chapter explain the institutional structure of EU and UK competition law.


Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi

‘The goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws’ evaluates the goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws. Competition laws seek to protect the competitive process in the marketplace from companies that seek to distort it. By safeguarding free and fair markets, competition laws promote consumer welfare as well as efficiencies in the marketplace. While key competition law principles are similar across the world, competition laws are not internationally uniform, but are instead customized by each jurisdiction. A comparison can be made between US Federal Antitrust Law and the EU competition law. There are also other jurisdictions that apply competition laws, including China, Japan, and South Korea.


2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 397-416
Author(s):  
Maja Bukovac Puvača

Directive 2014/104/EU, which should facilitate the exercise of the right to compensation for damage caused by an infringement of competition law, has entered into force at the end of 2014. In this paper author draws attention to some issues of liability for damages recognized as disputable during the process of its adoption, but failed to regulate by European legislator. In more detail is analysed the notion of damage, for which Directive endeavour to ensure effective exercise the right to claim full compensation in the national courts of the EU Member States. Due to the nature of acts, which represent the infringements of competition law (anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance); application of adopted rules seems to be very complicated in practice. Particularly complex issues are passing-on defence, the indirect purchasers’ right to claim, the recognition of the impact of protective prices (“umbrella effects”) and quantifi cation of damage. The paper presents the provisions of draft bill by which Directive should be transposed in Croatian legislation, related to the discussed issues.


2021 ◽  
pp. 49-82
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter provides a brief overview of EU and UK competition law and the institutions involved in formulating, interpreting and applying competition law in those jurisdictions. It also explains the relationship between EU competition law and the domestic competition laws of the Member States, in particular in the light of Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003. The rules of the European Economic Area are briefly referred to, and the trend on the part of Member States to adopt domestic competition rules modelled on those in the EU is also noted. Three diagrams at the end of the chapter explain the institutional structure of EU and UK competition law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-19
Author(s):  
Edward Coulson ◽  
Andrew Leitch

The recent increased focus of the European Commission on cartels formed and operated outside of the EU, which nonetheless harm competition in the internal market, has led to a corresponding increase in private damages actions being pursued in the English courts for losses occasioned by those cartels. Those private damages actions have tested both the jurisdictional reach of the English courts and the territorial scope of EU competition law. This article discusses the successful appeal by iiyama against the partial strike out of its private damages claims in the English High Court for losses occasioned by the CRT Glass and LCD cartels. The impact of the Court of Justice's decision in Intel, which was handed down between iiyama's damages actions being struck out and its successful appeal, is also discussed, together with the High Court's subsequent decision in Unlockd, which followed Intel and iiyama. Taken together, these cases provide significant increased clarity on the issues of jurisdiction and applicable law in private damages actions before the English courts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document