scholarly journals Generalities on legal regulation of cartel agreements

2021 ◽  
pp. 92-99
Author(s):  
Dumitrita Bologan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Academic Environment ◽  
European Directives ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Republic

This article provides an overview of the evolution of competition and competition law, both in the Republic of Moldova and in some European and US countries. Also, the paper crystallizes the conceptual approaches on cartels and offers an analysis of the doctrine of the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, France, Germany, USA, Great Britain regarding cartel agreements. Following the analysis carried out in this paper, it was observed that the contribution of foreign academics in the field of defining and classifying cartel agreements is substantial, and the jurisprudence of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice has served as a source of inspiration and progress for the academic environment, as well as for the development of competition on the market. Although in the Republic of Moldova there is limited research in the field of cartel agreements, it is gratifying that the legislation is harmonized with European directives, and the doctrine is developed starting from the most important international research in the field of protection of competition.

The “essential facilities” doctrine in ec competition law

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-499
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors-Llorens
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Essential Facility ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ec Competition Law

INOscar Bronner GmbH&Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH&Co. KG and others (Case C-7/97, [1999] 4 C.M.L.R. 112), the European Court of Justice has clarified the scope of the application of the “essential facilities” doctrine to EC competition law. The Commission defined an “essential facility” as a “facility or infrastructure without access to which competitors cannot provide services to their customers” (B&I Line plc v. Sealink Harbours Ltd., Commission Decision of 11 June 1992, [1992] 5 C.M.L.R. 255 at paragraph 41). Under the doctrine, a dominant undertaking that owns or controls such a facility and refuses, without an objective justification, to make it available to competitors–or makes it available on discriminatory terms–abuses its position of dominance.

scholarly journals Compulsory membership of pension schemes and the free movement of services in the EU

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans van Meerten ◽  
Elmar Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Pension Funds ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Pension Schemes ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Mandatory Participation ◽  
The Eu

Mandatory pension participation in the Netherlands is currently under review. This article examines the manner in which the system of mandatory participation in sectoral pension funds is presently organised as well as future proposals from the perspective of the freedom to provide services. It also briefly reviews mandatory participation in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France and Sweden and asks whether it constitutes a barrier to the freedom enshrined in Article 56 TFEU. Restrictions of this freedom in the field of mandatory participation are too easily excused in the Netherlands by pointing to decisions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in which it judged the system to be permissible. These decisions, however, were made from the perspective of competition law, and not on the basis of Article 56 TFEU. Grounds for justifying restrictions to this freedom exist, although different justifications are available for direct and indirect discrimination. The article questions how mandatory participation in the Member States considered in this article fare from this perspective?

scholarly journals Non-Privileged Applicants: Local Communities as Applicants of the Annulment Action before the European Court of Justice

10.4335/87 ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-306
Author(s):  
Janja Hojnik ◽  
Rajko Knez
Keyword(s):  
Local Communities ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Efficient System ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Ec Law

In addition to the option of submitting requests for reviewing constitutionality and legality to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, it has been possible for the Slovenian local communities to contest EC Acts before the EC Courts over the last five years. But the terms and conditions for that are much stricter than those required by the national law. The paper analyses the complex system of legal rules determining the terms and conditions to be observed by local communities to contest the legal acts issued by the EU institutions. These conditions are very strict. They can be hardly fulfilled by local communities because equal conditions apply both to them and to legal / natural persons. For this reason, EU has been criticized for not providing an efficient system of legal remedies to protect the rights of natural and legal persons to whom also local communities pertain. The European Court of Justice partially accepted criticism, thereby facilitating contestation of EC Acts. However, it limited itself primarily to some specific areas of EC law. Wide criticism of the ECJ has led to some changes being made under the Lisbon Treaty, although these changes are not as liberal as expected. EC Treaty • locus standi • local communities • individual concern • direct concern • Slovenia • EU

The Interface Between Competition Law and Private Law: Article 81, Illegality and Unjustified Enrichment

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-243
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
General Question ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Private enforcement through private party litigation is to play a central role in the enforcement of the European Community competition rules. However, there has so far been little case-law in the national courts to explore in detail the range of issues concerning the award of remedies for breach of the competition rules, principally arts 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This article considers the particular position of a cocontractor seeking to claim damages in unjustified enrichment in respect of a contract which is prohibited by art 81 and illegal. The Scots law position on the general question of recovery of damages with regard to an illegal contract is discussed, together with some recent English cases involving a breach of art 81. The article looks at the development of Community jurisprudence laying down the requirement for national courts to provide legal redress and to ensure the effectiveness of Community law. Finally, it considers the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in Courage v Crehan on a reference from the Court of Appeal.

The European Court of Justice and the More Economic Approach to EU Competition Law—Is the Tide Turning?

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne C. Witt
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Eu Competition Policy ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
More Economic Approach

In the late 1990s, the European Commission embarked on a mission to bring EU competition policy more into line with contemporary economic theory. Over a period of ten years, it systematically revised key legal concepts of all three pillars of EU competition law. Most importantly, it adopted the consumer welfare aim, revised its understanding of competitive harm and countervailing effects accordingly, and committed itself to carrying out more in-depth assessments of the investigated conduct’s effects instead of relying on form-based presumptions of illegality. Initially, many tenets of the more economic approach were in conflict with the case law of the European Court of Justice, which had a broader understanding of the aims of EU competition law. However, after a few initial set-backs for the Commission, several recent judgments in cases such as MEO, Intel, Post Danmark I, and Cartes Bancaires suggest that the Court’s understanding of EU competition law is evolving and that it is willing to embrace at least a few of the Commission’s revised principles. In particular, it is adopting a more effects-based approach to assessing business conduct and is cautiously curbing its former concept of harm in exclusionary situations. At the same time, however, it continues to adhere to many of its former freedom- and fairness-based principles, so that a number of uncertainties and inconsistencies remain.

scholarly journals A Preliminary Ruling Instrument in the Constitutional Jurisprudence of Lithuania

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 80-107
Author(s):  
Paulius Griciūnas
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Indirect Control ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

The judicial dialogue between the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and the European Court of Justice is analyzed in this article. The variety of opinions, arguments, and the evolution of the approaches regarding the right or obligation of the Constitutional Court to refer for a preliminary ruling are researched. Major events in the evolution were two referrals by the Constitutional Court in 2007 and 2017; both of these decisions to refer for the preliminary ruling are compared, and the similarities and differences analyzed. The potential of a preliminary ruling in the constitutional jurisprudence is demonstrated, with an emphasis on the indirect control of the legality of EU acts and the national identity clause.

scholarly journals Regulatory Autonomy of Great Britain: Problems and Perspectives

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (7) ◽  
pp. 71-79
Author(s):  
A. Bolshakov
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Regulatory Policy ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
The Eu

Sovereignty does not imply regulatory autonomy. After Brexit, the UK should align its regulatory policy with European norms, if it is interested in close partnership with the EU. Compromises must be made by both sides in order to ensure stability of the partnership. The EU will have to acknowledge the UK’s right to diverge from European rules. Britain will have to partly accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The structure of dispute settlement mechanism which will be created under the partnership agreement should be a product of a compromise. The present study shows that optimal structure of dispute settlement mechanism must include two different procedures: one for political issues and the other for commercial issues. The central role for the European Court of Justice must be envisaged as a part of politically oriented procedure. There must be no role for the European Court of Justice or any Union to set the pace of political communication. The latter reflects the interest of Great Britain to simplify economic relations, which means that, firstly, disputes are resolved by independent arbiters; secondly, the EU acknowledges the UK’s right to diverge from European regulations; and thirdly, the UK accepts the EU’s right to impose countervailing duties to compensate for adverse effects of divergence on competition. This article also examines the main problems of future British regulatory policy, especially in the field of state aid. Boris Johnson’s government has decided not to form a full-fledged regulatory regime in the area of state aid. Its stance is politically appropriate since Conservative party manifesto for the 2019 general election promised to support local industries without limitations. But that decision created a great deal of economic risk. Firstly, the absence of a domestic subsidy control regulator can cause chaos within regulation system because workable norms and rules can only be sustained by a tight enforcement mechanism. Secondly, the EU can cite lack of subsidy control as an obstacle for British business to have unrestricted access to the European market.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document