Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article
4 Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT 39780 – Envelopes) 5 See Article 1 of the 2014 Decision, and also recital (1) thereof 6 See Article 2(1)(e) of Decision C(2014) 9295 final
A Commentary on Article 101 TFEU - ResearchGate
1/2003 on the basis of Article 103 TFEU 16 Concerning the enforcement of Article 101, the open- worded nature of this provision results in its interpretation and application playing a major role This
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
Apr 21, 2016 · Article 101 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU 13 Entertaining doubts as to the interpretation of those provisions, the referring court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling ‘(1) Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU, whether or not read in
MARIO MARINIELLO* BRUEGEL WORKING PAPER
in respect to potential loss of competition Guidelines published in 2011 on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to cooperation agreements dedicate an entire section to standardisation5 The guidelines lay down the conditions under which
Ormberg - 20171116 HO 101 and 102 project
Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU or both in concurrence • Primary aim: to uncover similarities and discrepancies, coherencies and incoherencies in the jurisprudence of the ECJ that may provide some guidance and criteria
For Official Use DAF/COMP/WD(2012)28
pre-condition both to assess dominance under Article 102 TFEU and effect based infringements under Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU1 as well as an essential part of the EU Merger Control Regime2 2 In most cases market definition and market shares give a good first overview of the competitive situation and a proxy of the market power enjoyed by firms
Agreements concerted practices and decisions of associations
inapplicable public measures contrary to Article 101 TFUE In practice: before the NCA decision setting aside the measure, the parties to an agreement cannot be the subject of Article 101 TFUE proceedings; After the NCA decision setting aside the measure, the parties to an agreement are fully subject to Article 101 TFUE
[PDF] article 106 tfue
[PDF] article 101 code civil
[PDF] article 3 tue
[PDF] article 45 tfue
[PDF] tfue wiki
[PDF] article 56 tfue
[PDF] article 63 tfue
[PDF] exercices corrigés de physique tronc commun pdf
[PDF] article 57 tfue
[PDF] cours de physique tronc commun bac international pdf
[PDF] article 18 tfue
[PDF] horaires tgv luxembourg paris
[PDF] paris luxembourg tgv durée
[PDF] blablacar luxembourg paris
www.beccle.no
post@beccle.uib.noArticles 101 and 102 TFEU'Restriction of competition', coherence and concurrent applicationNordic Academic Network in Competition Law Conference
Oslo, 16 and 17 November 2017
Håvard Ormberg
Faculty of Law, UoB, and BECCLE
havard.ormberg@uib.no | post@beccle.uib.no | www.beccle.no BECCLEBERGEN CENTER FOR COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS
Today•Subject, purpose research question
•Background and motivation •Methodology •Framing the project A dominant firm offers a contract to a customer that provides for exclusivity in return for rebates. The contract is litigated before a national court under both Articles 101 and102 TFEU. The national court finds that the exclusivity in question only covers 1 % of the market, and states in its judgment that there is no infringement of Art. 101 TFEU because the agreement does not appreciably restrict competition.
However, the national court proceeds to affirm liability under Art. 102 TFEU on the ground that the contract amounts to an abuse and is presumptively unlawful pursuant to the Hoffmann-La Roche line of case law. How can the same contract be found to (presumptively) restrict and not to restrict competition at the same time, depending on the provision under which it is examined?The dominant firm predicament
"The Advocate General's opinion in Intel v Commission: Eight points of common sense for consideration by the CJEU"Nicolas Petit
Subject and purpose•Subject - The simultaneous (concurrent) application ofArticles 101 and 102 TFEU•RQ: Whether there are or should be any principles or criteria guiding whether to apply Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU or both in concurrence.
Subject and purpose•Subject - The simultaneous (concurrent) application ofArticles 101 and 102 TFEU•RQ: Whether there are or should be any principles or criteria guiding whether to apply Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU or both in concurrence.
'Concurrent'/simultaneous application•Ideal heteroclite concurrence -refers to the situation in which a person by one single action commits several criminal offences, and is convicted pursuant to the respective provision in concurrence •Real/actual heteroclite concurrence -refers to the situation in which several actions infringes several provisions, but is to be dealt with in the same caseToday•Subject, purpose research question
•Background and motivation •Methodology •Framing the project Background and motivation•Supposed to achieve the same aim •Applies to the same behavior - can be applied in parallel •No clear criteria for application where the provisions can be applied in parallel•Uncertainty as to the meaning of 'Restriction of competition' and whether the same concept has been applied under Arts. 101 and 102 TFEU
•Difference in legal characterization, assessment and consequence for similar behavior under the provisions
•Uncertainty due to the competition agencies' own discretionThe dominant firm predicament
•RQ: Whether there are or should be any principles or criteria guiding whether to apply Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU or both in concurrence.
•Primary aim: to uncover similarities and discrepancies, coherencies and incoherencies in the jurisprudence of the ECJ that may provide some guidance and criteria.