Dentons (Brussels)

James S. Venit

Dentons (Brussels)
Lawyer (Partner)

Jim Venit, co-head of the Antitrust Competition practice for Europe, has extensive international antitrust and European competition law experience. He has been practicing competition law in Brussels since 1980. His experience includes representing multinational companies in proceedings under the Merger Regulation and Articles 101 and 102 (formerly 81 and 82). He has represented clients in a wide range of economic sectors and has extensive experience counseling companies on compliance matters and the implementation of compliance programs. Mr. Venit has written extensively on various aspects of competition law and was named one of the “Top 10 antitrust lawyers” from around the world by Global Counsel. He has been repeatedly selected for inclusion in Chambers Global: The World’s Leading Lawyers for Business. In addition, Mr. Venit was named a leading practitioner in his field by Who’s Who Legal: Competition Lawyers & Economists.


Linked authors

Dentons (Shanghai)
Dentons (Shanghai)
Dentons (Washington)
Dentons (San Francisco)
Dacheng - Dentons (Beijing)


7623 Bulletin

James S. Venit Dominance in the IT sector: An overview of EU and national case law


A significant number of the Commission’s most prominent Article 102 landmark cases have targeted high tech companies – beginning with IBM in the 1980’s on down through Microsoft, Intel and now Google. National competition authorities are similarly focused on this area, most notably the German Federal Cartel Office which has recently opened proceedings pending against both Facebook and Amazon.

Frederic Depoortere, Ingrid Vandenborre, James S. Venit, Simon Baxter The EU General Court upholds in its entirety the Commission’s decision imposing a fine on a microprocessor manufacturer for abusing a dominant position in the market for desktop and laptop microprocessors (Intel)


In a long-awaited judgment issued on June 12, 2014, the General Court upheld in its entirety the European Commission’s May 13, 2009, decision imposing a fine of €1.06 billion ($1.5 billion) on Intel for abusing a dominant position in the market for x86 CPUs. In particular, the court upheld the (...)

Horst Henschen, James S. Venit The EU Court of Justice upholds the €12.6 million fine imposed by the EU Commission for abuse of dominant position in the German telephony fixed market (Deutsche Telekom)


On October 14, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) issued its judgment in Deutsche Telekom AG vs. Commission (Case C-280/08 P, hereinafter the “Judgment”) dismissing an appeal brought by Deutsche Telekom AG (Telekom) against a judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the (...)

Frederic Depoortere, Ingrid Vandenborre, James S. Venit, Simon Baxter The EU General Court confirms fine imposed by the Commission for abuse of dominant position in the market for reverse-vending machines (RVM) used to collect used beverage containers focusing on exclusive agreements and loyalty-based rebates (Tomra)


On September 9, 2010, the General Court of the EU (the Court) issued its judgment in Tomra vs. Commission (Case T-155/06), dismissing an appeal brought by Tomra against a European Commission decision imposing a €24 million fine for abuse of its dominant position in Germany, Austria, Sweden, (...)

Frederic Depoortere, Ingrid Vandenborre, James S. Venit, Simon Baxter The EU General Court imposes a high burden on the Commission to refuse access to its confidential records (Editions Odile Jacob)


On June 9, 2010, the EU’s General Court (Court) issued its judgment on an appeal by Editions Odile Jacob (EOJ) against a decision by the European Commission (the Commission) refusing to disclose certain documents relating to the Commission’s review under the EC Merger Regulation of the (...)

David Kavanagh, James S. Venit, Shepard Goldfein, Steven C. Sunshine The England & Wales High Court denies representative action statute for antitrust price-fixing claims in the air freight services market (Emerald / British Airways)


On April 8, 2009, the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, granted British Airways’ request for an order striking two Plaintiffs’ representative claims. Though still subject to appeal, this decision potentially represents a significant obstacle to efforts underway to apply (...)



Total visits

Number of readings per contribution

Number of contributions

Author's ranking
In number of contributions
In number of visits
In average number of visits
Send a message