scholarly journals What Has Changed in European Concept of Undertaking? From „FENIN“ to „EASY PAY“

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 81-88
Author(s):  
Katarína Kalesná
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Correct Interpretation ◽  
General Internal ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Regulatory Principle ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Impact

Competition is the main self-regulatory principle of the market in general, internal market included. Competition law has the form of general clauses making its application dependant on the correct interpretation of general concepts. Core competition rules of the Functional Treaty („TFEU“) are addressed to undertakings; undertaking thus belongs to key concepts of competition law. Interpretation of this concept is decisive for the scope of competition rules application. So, the article explores different approaches of the case law to the interpretation of the concept of undertaking based on economic activity.  It compares the FENIN doctrine and the new functional test of separability developed in EASY PAY. It drives attention to the impact of this new test for the evaluation of procurement activities under competition scrutiny.

scholarly journals Public Entities as Undertakings under Competition Rules

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-243
Author(s):  
Martina Repas
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Economic Entity ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Public Bodies

This paper deals with undertakings, i.e., entities that are obliged to act in accordance with competition rules. This issue is one of the key elements for the application of competition rules. Its importance derives from severe consequences in case of breach of these rules that may give rise to fines, nullity of agreements, and in some regulations, even to criminal offenses. For this purpose, the paper explains the notion of ‘undertaking’ as understood in the EU and Slovenian competition law systems. It deals especially with public bodies such as states, local communities, public institutes, and others that can also qualify as undertakings when they perform activities for pay in the market, and are thus obliged to follow competition rules. A review of the case law shows that many public entities have been under the Competition Authority’s investigation of infringements of competition rules. KEYWORDS: • competition law • public authority • undertaking • economic activity • association of undertakings • single economic entity • EU • Slovenia

Anticompetitive Effects in EU Competition Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Ibáñez Colomo
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Time Variable ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competitive Disadvantage ◽  
Probability Threshold ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Action

Abstract This article examines the meaning and scope of the notion of anticompetitive effects in EU competition law. It does so by bringing together several strands of the case law (and this across all provisions, namely Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and merger control). The analysis is structured around a framework that considers the main variables that shape the notion in practice: the time variable (actual or potential effects); the dimensions of competition and the counterfactual; the meaning of effects and the probability threshold (plausibility, likelihood, certainty). The exercise shows that it is possible to discern a concrete meaning to the notion of anticompetitive effects. Some central questions, including the role and operation of the counterfactual and the threshold of effects, have already been answered by the Court of Justice. In particular, it has long been clear that anticompetitive effects amount to more than a mere competitive disadvantage and/or a limitation of a firm’s freedom of action. The impact on equally efficient firms’ ability and/or incentive to compete would need to be established. At the same time, some open questions and some potential areas of friction (relating, inter alia, to stakeholders’ tendency to conflate appreciability and effects) remain. These are also discussed.

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.

Part II Legal Foundations, 4 The Objective of Article 102

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazzini Renato
Keyword(s):  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Literal Interpretation ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Legal Foundations ◽  
Teleological Interpretation ◽  
Economic Objective ◽  
The Eu

This chapter identifies the objective of Article 102 through a process of literal and teleological interpretation. The literal interpretation of Article 102 sheds little light on its objective. The only element that points to the purpose of the prohibition is the requirement that abuses of a dominant position are prohibited as ‘incompatible with the internal market’. Therefore, the purpose of Article 102 must be determined in the light of the objectives of the internal market. A literal interpretation of Article 3(3) reveals that the economic objective of the internal market is to maximize long-term social welfare through productivity growth. Therefore, this is also the objective of the EU competition rules and Article 102 in particular. The chapter then looks at the case law on Articles 101 and 102 and the EU Merger regime.

The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 143-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Dunne
Keyword(s):  
Hard Core ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Right

AbstractPrivate enforcement is an increasingly prominent element of EU competition law. The forthcoming Directive on damages actions aims to strengthen and, to a degree, harmonise procedures for private competition litigation, while recent case law of the Court of Justice reaffirms the centrality of the right to claim compensation for losses stemming from breach of the competition rules. Moreover, this right has been presented as an essentially unitary one, whereby any victim of any type of competition infringement has, in principle, the right to claim damages. This chapter reviews the evolving framework, and considers, specifically, the role for private enforcement within the overall system of EU competition law. Taking into account the Commission’s efforts to facilitate and increase private enforcement, the emerging EU public enforcement framework, as well as the substantive EU competition rules more generally, this chapter argues that, contrary to the rhetoric, private enforcement is a mechanism best adapted, and arguably most appropriate, for use only in the context of hard-core cartels. It is further suggested that the gap between rhetoric and reality is not problematic as such, yet difficulties may arise insofar as these divergences conflict with the principle of effectiveness.

scholarly journals Assessing the Impact of Registering Non-Traditional Marks

2018 ◽  
pp. 235-256
Author(s):  
Lavinia Brancusi
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Market Definition ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Product Substitutability ◽  
The Impact

This chapter discusses possible negative effects on market competition resulting from registration and exercise of NTTMs. A first insight into EU judicial precedents dealing with trademarks reveals the risk of different practices violating competition rules. A following inquiry from a “law and economics” approach emphasizes certain competition concerns characteristic of NTTMs. The focal point concerns the issue of product substitutability, with a consideration as to whether competition law perspective may be of some use for trademark law, especially for functionality cases featuring NTTMs. After articulating the need of applying a functionality test based on product delineation and an assessment of substitutable alternatives, separate remarks discuss market definition in competition law underlining cases of narrowly defined markets because of branding strategies. The study advocates the use of methods and proofs modeled on those applied in competition law for examining the registrability and resolution of conflicts related to NTTMs.

scholarly journals Działalność gospodarcza poddana reglamentacji w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na przykładzie prowadzenia gier hazardowych

2018 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 413-429
Author(s):  
Stanisław Biernat
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Indirect Assessment ◽  
Court Of Justice

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SUBJECTED TO REGLAMENTATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EXEMPLIFIED BY CONDUCTING GAMBLINGIn EU law, conducting gambling is classified as the exercise of the freedoms of the internal market, regulated in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Conducting gambling is not currently regulated or harmonized at EU level, and therefore the regulation of gambling is the competence of Member States. EU law defining acceptable ways of regulating gambling in the Member States is now a judge-made law and the result of the creative jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. So far, the Court has issued dozens of judgments in which it interpreted Treaty provisions proclaiming the freedoms of the internal market in the context of conducting gambling. These judgments provide a direct or indirect assessment of whether national law complies with EU law.

27. EU competition law

2020 ◽  
pp. 641-684
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Core ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the core elements of competition law in the European Union (EU). It provides a number of examples of the types of agreements covered by EU competition law and shows the dangers which may arise when independent undertakings come together to coordinate their activities to distort competition. The chapter reviews the impact of anti-competitive agreements on the internal market and focuses on the abuse of market power and controls over concentrations. Overall, the chapter discusses the provisions and enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document