scholarly journals Predatory pricing as a type of exclusionary abuse of dominant position in case law of courts of European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 1059-1074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Fišer-Šobot
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Predatory Pricing ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position

scholarly journals Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Rita Leandro Vasconcelos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position ◽  
Limited Scope

In its judgment of 15 September 2016, the General Court ruled on whether the commitments offered by Thompson Reuters to the European Commission during an investigation of a possible abuse of dominant position were sufficient to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission. This is only the second time the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Commission decisions rendering binding the commitments offered by an undertaking Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. With regard to standing, the General Court ruled the appeal lodged by a competitor admissible. As for substance, the General Court generally confirmed the previous case law. It ruled on the commitments meet the competition concerns identified by the institution, the different proportionality standard in Article 9 decisions as compared to Article 7 Regulation 1/2003 decisions (formal decision finding an infringement), and the limited scope of judicial review of the Court of Justice of the European Union in these appeals.

1 Introduction

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazzini Renato
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Economic Law ◽  
Legal Perspective

This introductory chapter provides an overview of Article 102, which prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market. It is a fundamental element of the economic law of the European Union. However, its objective and scope are undefined. Only once the objective has been identified, can the legal tests for dominance and abuse be understood and developed consistently with the teleological hermeneutics that the case law mandates. This book then adopts an integrated and holistic approach to the analysis of the objective and the tests of Article 102, examines the objective and principles of Article 102 within the framework of the Treaties, and analyses Article 102 not only from a legal perspective but also under the lens of economics.

scholarly journals Predatory Pricing: A Framework for Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-155
Author(s):  
Raimundas Moisejevas
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Predatory Pricing ◽  
Member States ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Extensive Analysis ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position

Abstract One of the key principles of EU Competition law is a prohibition of the abuse of a dominant position established in the Article 102 of the TFEU. Predatory pricing is one of the forms of the abuse of dominant position. To decide whether the dominant undertaking has referred to predatory pricing it is necessary to check several elements: costs and prices of the dominant undertaking; the possibility to recoup losses; intent; and objective justifications. The Court of Justice, the European Commission and competition institutions in most member states perform extensive analysis of a relationship between costs and prices of a dominant undertaking while dealing with cases on predatory pricing. However, we believe that competition authorities should pay more attention to evaluation and to whether pricing will cause elimination of competitors and damage to consumers. This article critically reviews the framework of the analysis of predatory pricing in the practice of the Court of Justice and the European Commission.

Abuse of Dominant Position and Cease-and-Desist Agreements: Risks to Brazilian Competition Policy Arising from the Atypical Case of Petrobras’ Refineries

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (7) ◽  
pp. 706-726
Author(s):  
Mário André Machado Cabral
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Oil Refinery ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Fourth Section ◽  
The Third ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position

Abstract This paper aims to analyze how the Brazilian competition authority, Cade, deals with cease-and-desist agreements involving abuse of dominant position. The focus is a recent abuse-of-dominant-position case. Cade and the Brazilian state-owned oil and gas company, Petrobras, negotiated a cease-and-desist agreement establishing as remedy the divestment of eight out of 13 Petrobras’ refineries. The hypothesis is that the case was atypical in the light of Cade’s own case law. The paper assesses the Petrobras’ case and compares it to Cade’s case law (2012-2019) concerning cease-and-desist agreements relating to the abuse of a dominant position. The results of the study confirm the atypicality of the case. It demonstrates that the case causes risks to Brazilian competition policy. The paper is divided as follows: after an introduction, the first section discusses abuse of dominant position in Brazil, especially the cases that concluded with cease-and-desist agreements; the second section describes the case related to Petrobras’ oil refinery assets; the third section verifies whether the case may be considered atypical; the fourth section debates the legal and policy risks arising from the case; the final section contains some concluding remarks.

scholarly journals Abuse of Dominant Market Position by Predatory Pricing; The Valio Case

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Aarne Puisto ◽  
Hamed Alavi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Predatory Pricing ◽  
Market Position ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Face ◽  
Dominant Market Position ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the competition law related to abuse of a dominant market position using strategy of predatory pricing by undertakings in the European Union and, compares the same situation to the United States’ predatory pricing law. The purpose of this article is to survey predatory pricing as a phenomenon both within and outside the EU. Article is largely centered on the case of Valio, which is still awaiting final judgment from the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. This case was chosen as it is extremely topical and has several unique features. The findings proved that undertakings who achieved their dominant position before the recession have significant advantage over smaller undertakings. However, they cannot necessarily afford to act on the same basis for long, which is why a model closer to that of the United States would be of benefit to control some behaviors of these undertakings. Bearing in mind that the Valio case is examined under EU law, it will be interesting to see if its judgement will be remembered as the ‘milk fallacy’ or if it will change the face of the case law as it currently stands.

scholarly journals Abuse of Dominant Market Position by Predatory Pricing; The Valio Case

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Aarne Puisto ◽  
Hamed Alavi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Predatory Pricing ◽  
Market Position ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Face ◽  
Dominant Market Position ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the competition law related to abuse of a dominant market position using strategy of predatory pricing by undertakings in the European Union and, compares the same situation to the United States’ predatory pricing law. The purpose of this article is to survey predatory pricing as a phenomenon both within and outside the EU. Article is largely centered on the case of Valio, which is still awaiting final judgment from the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. This case was chosen as it is extremely topical and has several unique features. The findings proved that undertakings who achieved their dominant position before the recession have significant advantage over smaller undertakings. However, they cannot necessarily afford to act on the same basis for long, which is why a model closer to that of the United States would be of benefit to control some behaviors of these undertakings. Bearing in mind that the Valio case is examined under EU law, it will be interesting to see if its judgement will be remembered as the ‘milk fallacy’ or if it will change the face of the case law as it currently stands.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document