Search results - Concurrences

1 Sep 2019

Google’s (forgotten) monopoly – Ad technology services on the open web

Damien Geradin, Dimitrios Katsifis • N° 3-2019

Online advertising is the fuel of the digital economy. Yet despite the industry’s gigantic growth, the lion’s share is captured by a handful of digital platforms, leaving a small share of revenue for publishers, further reduced by commissions charged by ad tech companies. Against this background, (...)

1 Sep 2019

Google and the trans-Atlantic antitrust abyss

Christian Bergqvist, Jonathan Rubin • N° 3-2019

During the late 2000s, several jurisdictions, including the EU and the U.S., opened investigations into potential antitrust violations by the Internet search firm, Google, for alleged bias in the ranking of the links returned in response to search queries. While the EU investigations in 2017 (...)

1 Sep 2019

The obligation for the competition authorities of the EU Member States to apply EU antitrust law and the Facebook decision of the Bundeskartellamt

Wouter Wils • N° 3-2019 • pp. 58-66

Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003 obliges the competition authorities of the EU Member States (national competition authorities or NCAs) to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (EU antitrust law) whenever they apply national competition law to conduct falling within the scope of EU antitrust law. (...)

1^er sept. 2019

L’abus de domination sur le marché numérique : Pour une lecture juridique du déséquilibre économique à l’aune des oligopoles

Nils Monnerie • N° 3-2019 • pp. 67-75

Les condamnations se suivent sans toujours se ressembler de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique. Cependant, il est certain que le marché du numérique est au cœur des préoccupations des autorités européennes et américaines. Pratiques anticoncurrentielles, pratiques commerciales abusives et atteintes aux (...)

1^er mai 2019

Une repénalisation du droit de la concurrence en France ? À propos de l’utilisation de l’article 40 du code de procédure pénale par les services d’instruction de l’Autorité

Robert Saint-Esteben • N° 2-2019 • pp. 54-65

Le rapporteur général de l’Autorité de la concurrence entend utiliser la saisine du parquet par la voie de l’art. 40 du code de procédure pénale pour accroître l’efficacité de l’activité de l’Autorité, en bénéficiant notamment des moyens d’investigation plus étendus de la procédure pénale. Cependant, la (...)

1 May 2019

Conditional pricing and the AEC test: A happy marriage or an awkward couple?

Lucas Peeperkorn • N° 2-2019 • pp. 40-53

In this article the question is investigated whether and when conditional pricing and the AEC test form a happy couple. In situations where rebates are used to dampen competition between incumbents or as an exploitative device, applying the AEC test does not make sense. However, in cases where (...)

1^er févr. 2019

Le régime juridique des pratiques restrictives de concurrence en question

Frédéric Jenny • N° 1-2019

La prohibition des pratiques restrictives de concurrence est une des particularités du droit français de la concurrence. Pour une large part, elle vise à restreindre la liberté de négociation entre fournisseurs et distributeurs ou à contraindre le résultat de cette négociation. L’objet de la (...)

1 Feb 2019

Legal professional privilege in EU antitrust enforcement: Law, policy & procedure

Wouter Wils • N° 1-2019

This paper discusses the law, policy and procedure of legal professional privilege in EU antitrust enforcement. It focuses primarily on the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the European Commission, but also touches briefly on the enforcement of EU antitrust law by the competition (...)

1^er févr. 2019

Qualification d’aide d’État et compensation des coûts des entreprises

Cheik Galokho • N° 1-2019 • pp. 56-65

La qualification d’aide d’État ne peut être retenue que si un soutien public confère un avantage à une entreprise. L’avantage disparaît lorsque le soutien public ne fait que compenser certains coûts auxquels l’entreprise bénéficiaire fait face. Mais la distinction entre les coûts qui peuvent être compensés (...)

1 Nov 2018

Connecting competition law standards to the Internet of things

Aymeric de Moncuit • N° 4-2018 • pp. 85-94

The advent of the Internet of Things will entail a new Internet revolution and bring about profound changes that will rival the first wave of Internet innovation. This paper explores the competition law implications raised by this upcoming revolution. Starting by discussing the merits of open (...)

1^er nov. 2018

Le règlement des différends par l’Arafer : Un instrument de régulation efficace à la disposition des acteurs du secteur

Matthieu Poujol • N° 4-2018 • pp. 95-103

La procédure de règlement des différends a permis à l’Autorité de régulation des activités ferroviaires et routières d’améliorer de manière décisive les conditions d’accès au réseau ferroviaire et aux installations de service. Dans la perspective de l’ouverture à la concurrence du marché du transport (...)

1 Sep 2018

To hire or not to hire: U.S. cartel enforcement targeting employment practices

Dina Hoffer, Elizabeth Prewitt • N° 3-2018 • pp. 78-85

In October 2016, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice announced its intention to thereafter—and for the first time—criminally prosecute “naked” no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. Fundamental fairness questions arise when the Justice Department expands the reach of its criminal (...)

1 Sep 2018

Reflections on gun jumping in mergers

Isabelle de Silva • N° 3-2018 • pp. 55-66

On 8 November 2016 Altice-SFR was fined 80 million euros by the French Competition Authority for Gun jumping. This decision, first of a kind in Europe with regard to the fine’s amount and the practices at stake, has raised a debate amongst lawyers and companies towards its potential impact on (...)

1^er sept. 2018

La restriction accessoire à une opération de concentration, une immunité circonscrite

Faustine Viala • N° 3-2018

En droit de l’Union européenne, le régime des restrictions accessoires, c’est-à-dire des restrictions directement liées et nécessaires, à une opération de concentration est celui de l’autoévaluation par les parties. En d’autres termes, une décision d’autorisation de concentration n’est pas un blanc-seing (...)

1 Sep 2018

Convergence, divergence or disturbance – How major economic powers approach international antitrust

Michael Ristaniemi • N° 3-2018

This article attempts to understand how the driving forces of the global economy — the European Union, the United States, and China — view and approach international antitrust. This will be done by analysing recent stances that they have taken as well as longer trends in their actions and (...)

1^er sept. 2018

La place du Parlement européen dans le modèle institutionnel de concurrence de l’Union européenne

Claire Mongouachon, Lionel Zevounou • N° 3-2018 • pp. 67-77

L’article analyse d’un point de vue juridique et politique le rôle marginal réservé au Parlement européen dans l’édiction et la mise en œuvre des règles de concurrence. Il décrit le mouvement d’intensification du contrôle parlementaire exercé sur la Commission européenne. Il montre comment, sur le fondement (...)

1^er mai 2018

Contrôle des concentrations - L’appréhension des participations minoritaires par la Commission européenne : Des solutions classiques aux thèses d’avant-garde

Marie-Cecile Rameau, Yelena Trifounovitch • N° 2-2018 • pp. 50-59

En 2017, la Commission européenne s’est intéressée aux participations minoritaires classiques, industrielles ou commerciales, qu’une entreprise détient dans une autre, soit pour identifier un contrôle exclusif de fait, y compris en l’absence de quasi-certitude d’obtenir la majorité à l’assemblée (...)

1 May 2018

Assessing online platform mergers: Taking up the new challenges faced by the French Competition Authority in the digital economy

Isabelle de Silva • N° 2-2018 • pp. 39-49

The purpose of this article is to share the lessons learned by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) following its first in-depth investigation of a merger case involving two major online platforms. The FCA believes that anti-competitive risks arising out of Internet platform mergers must be (...)

1 May 2018

Common sense about common ownership

Douglas H. Ginsburg, Keith Klovers • N° 2-2018

Some scholars have argued that the phenomenon known as common ownership, particularly by large investment managers, is anticompetitive and prohibited by the U.S. antitrust laws. These proponents call for the divestiture of trillions of dollars of equities. We believe the argument for antitrust (...)

1 May 2018

NRAs decisions: Zero rating and net neutrality challenges

Edoardo Cazzato, Stefano De Luca • N° 2-2018

The purpose of this paper is to identify policy and regulatory implications of a recent commercial practice called zero rating. Zero rating describes a situation whereby internet service providers do not calculate the data volume consumed for accessing particular online content, applications or (...)

1 May 2018

From Greek olive oil to Latvian music: Is there any such thing as unfair prices?

Nils Wahl • N° 2-2018

Whether antitrust laws should and, if so, under what conditions, prohibit dominant firms to charge “excessive” or “unfair” prices to consumers remains a very controversial issue. It is thus not surprising that, in that respect, different jurisdictions have made different choices. For example, US (...)

1 Feb 2018

The decline and fall of the leniency programme in Europe

Johan Ysewyn, Siobhan Kahmann • N° 1-2018 • pp. 44-59

The authors explore the reasons behind the reduction in immunity applications for cartels in Europe. This confirms the Commission’s reliance on immunity applications to uncover cartels, discusses the features of the current regime for applicants in detail, and assesses whether the benefits and (...)

1 Feb 2018

Unfair prices: A few remarks on competition policy and antitrust analysis

Gabriella Muscolo, Giovanni Pitruzzella • N° 1-2018 • pp. 60-67

Recent antitrust intervention against unfair prices in the pharmaceutical industry by the Italian and UK competition authorities, as well as the answer of the European Court of Justice to preliminary questions from the Latvian Supreme Court, have breathed new life into the longstanding debate (...)

1 Feb 2018

Institutional design of enforcing public interest considerations in merger control

Aranka Nagy • N° 1-2018

The author analyses whether or not competition policy should aim to achieve non-competition-related goals. Should other considerations than consumer welfare be taken into account in the standard merger assessment? Furthermore, the author examines how competition regimes can meet the public (...)

1 Nov 2017

Competition Authorities: Towards More Independence and Prioritisation? – The European Commission’s “ECN+” Proposal for a Directive to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers

Wouter Wils • N° 4-2017 • pp. 60-80

This paper contains my contribution to the panel “Competition authorities: Towards more independence and prioritisation?” at the 8th International Concurrences Review Conference “New Frontiers of Antitrust” (Paris, 26 June 2017). It focuses in particular on the European Commission’s “ECN+” Proposal (...)

1 Nov 2017

Fairness and competition law: A fairness paradox

Maurits Dolmans, Wanjie Lin • N° 4-2017

“Fairness” in EU competition law is hotly debated. This article explores the concept from a sociological, philosophical, and legal perspective, and suggests there is a fairness paradox: while competition law should reflect the values of fairness, if fairness were actually employed in substantive (...)

1^er nov. 2017

Réflexions sur l’évolution de la preuve des pratiques anticoncurrentielles devant les autorités de concurrence

Laurence Idot • N° 4-2017 • pp. 45-59

La preuve des pratiques anticoncurrentielles a subi de profondes évolutions au cours des trente dernières années. La charge de la preuve qui pèse sur les autorités de concurrence est de plus en plus lourde et variée, mais parallèlement, les techniques qui permettent d’alléger cette charge se sont (...)

1^er sept. 2017

Comparaison n’est pas raison : Pour une clarification du critère de sélectivité d’une aide d’État

Olivier Peiffert • N° 3-2017 • pp.52-63

En l’état du droit, la condition de sélectivité d’une aide d’État, au sens de l’article 107 §1 TFUE, reste à clarifier. Le présent article propose de tenir compte de ce que cette condition appelle une comparaison des traitements réservés à différentes catégories d’entreprises, qui est une opération (...)

1 Sep 2017

Disruptive innovation and merger remedies: How to predict the unpredictable?

Frédéric de Bure, Laurence Bary • N° 3-2017

Innovation seems to have become the new mantra among the antitrust community in Europe. In the specific context of merger control, the debate focuses on the possible impact of mergers on classic R&D and whether turnover-based jurisdictional thresholds create a risk that certain harmful (...)

1 May 2017

FRAND Access to open standards and the patent exclusivity: Restating the principles

Hanns Ullrich • N° 2-2017

When technical standards are to be defined pursuant to the claims of a patent and, therefore, the use of the standard will necessarily infringe that standard-essential patent (SEP), the proprietor may commit to granting all users a license at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) (...)

1 May 2017

Private enforcement of EU antitrust law and its relationship with public enforcement: Past, present and future

Wouter Wils • N° 2-2017

This paper provides a short history of private enforcement of EU antitrust law and its relationship with public enforcement, from the 1957 EEC Treaty over Regulation 17 and Regulation 1/2003 until Directive 2014/104 and the current outlook. I. Introduction 1. This article provides a short (...)

1 May 2017

The international aspects of private enforcement after the Directive 2014/104/EU: Gaps in the EU system and competition between national laws?

Laurence Idot • N° 2-2017

Directive 2014/104, i.e. the ’Damages Directive’, is currently being transposed into national law. The aim of this directive is admittedly not to solve the issues of private international law arising from actions for damages; however, its provisions will likely increase these issues in the (...)

1^er mai 2017

Les rescrits fiscaux sous l’emprise de la prohibition des aides d’État

Catherine Prieto • N° 2-2017

Cet article est une contribution écrite à la mémoire du professeur Neau-Leduc. Il tend à démontrer que l’application du droit des aides d’État aux rescrits fiscaux n’est pas une source de perturbation pour le droit fiscal mais révèle une convergence d’objectifs et crée une impulsion pour une construction (...)

1 May 2017

Joint tendering under EU competition law

Cyril Ritter • N° 2-2017 • pp.60-69

This article seeks (a) to draw the line between legitimate joint tendering and joint tendering which is actually anti-competitive joint selling, and (b) to draw attention to other theories of harm than joint selling in the area of joint tendering. The EU competition law assessment of joint (...)

1^er mai 2017

Transposition de la directive Dommages en France : Regards sur le nouveau titre VIII du livre IV du Code de commerce

Rafael P. Amaro • N° 2-2017 • pp.70-81

Après un processus législatif qui aura duré près de douze ans, l’épilogue vient de s’écrire : la Directive 2014/104/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 26 novembre 2014 est enfin transposée en droit français ! Pour l’essentiel, les dispositions de transposition ont été insérées dans un tout nouveau (...)

1 Feb 2017

Cooperation with the European Commission in antitrust cases: A new way paved by the ARA case

Céline Gauer, Johannes Lübking • N° 1-2017 • pp. 81-87

The recently adopted ARA decision opens a new avenue for more cooperation in antitrust cases. In this decision, the Commission established an infringement, imposed a fine and structural remedies while at the same time acknowledging ARA’s cooperation in the procedure and reducing the fine as a (...)

1 Feb 2017

The use of leniency in EU cartel enforcement: An assessment after twenty years?

Wouter Wils • N° 1-2017

Since 1996, the European Commission has been operating a leniency programme, under which companies cooperating with its cartel investigations can obtain immunity from fines or a reduction of fines. Leniency plays a prominent role in EU cartel enforcement today. This paper assesses the positive (...)

1^er févr. 2017

L’avenir incertain du principe de loyauté dans l’administration de la preuve dans le contentieux des pratiques anticoncurrentielles

Rafael P. Amaro • N° 1-2017 • pp. 73-80

Par un arrêt du 7 janvier 2011, la Cour de cassation a adopté une conception étendue du principe de loyauté dans l’administration de la preuve dans le contentieux des pratiques anticoncurrentielles devant l’Autorité de la concurrence. Cette conception impose notamment à l’Autorité et aux juges du fond (...)

1 Feb 2017

The review of Regulation 1/2003: Any lessons to be learnt from the NCAs’ procedural rules?

Denis Fosselard, Giulia Carnazza • N° 1-2017

Several contributions lodged within the framework of the public consultation on a possible review of Regulation 1/2003 have claimed, sometimes vigorously, that the European Commission should seek to reform Regulation 1/2003 in a manner that does not only focus on strengthening the powers of the (...)

1 Nov 2016

The E15 Competition Policy and Trade report: Timely and trenchant

James F. Rill, Jana I. Seidl • Nº 4-2016

The E15 Report is a thoughtful, creative and thorough examination of the interplay between trade and competition law. It correctly suggests a mutual awareness of and respect for the two avenues of influence in international trade. Considerable work has been done on the convergence of (...)

1 Nov 2016

Raising the EU evidentiary bar for the “single and continuous infringement” doctrine

Alejandro Guerrero Perez, Daniel G. Swanson, Peter Alexiadis • Nº 4-2016

Viewed against the backdrop of the European Commission’s withdrawal of a number of EU antitrust investigations for alleged collusive practices, the authors analyze the overhaul of the “single and continuous infringement” doctrine which has been progressively subjected to increasing evidentiary (...)

1^er nov. 2016

Lutte contre les cartels et comportement des managers

Constance Monnier-Schlumberger, Emmanuel Combe • Nº 4-2016 • pp. 51-68

Dans cet article, nous associons à l’approche classique des cartels en termes d’économie du crime une approche en termes de “gouvernement d’entreprise”. Cela nous conduit à étudier les motivations d’un manager à s’engager ou à rester dans un cartel, en y intégrant des facteurs comportementaux et (...)

1 Nov 2016

Discretion and judicial review in EU competition law: A technical analysis on sources of discretion, judicial review and implications for the litigants

Georgios Gryllos • Nº 4-2016

The European Union is based on the rule of law inasmuch as measures adopted by its institutions or by its Member States are reviewed as to their conformity with EU Law within what is called “a complete system of legal remedies and procedures.” In this context, the question arises as to the (...)

1 Nov 2016

Chinese State capitalism and Western antitrust policy

Nicolas Petit • Nº 4-2016 • pp. 69-79

Enthused by China’s conversion to the free market system in 1978 and its adoption of Western-style market institutions, the world has spent the last few decades turning a blind eye to China’s real “governance” problem: that a shadow Party-State system permeates all branches of the economy. Whatever (...)

1^er nov. 2016

Réflexions sur la notion d’infraction unique et continue en droit européen de la concurrence

Laurence Idot • Nº 4-2016

Mentionnée pour la première fois dans l’affaire dite du polypropylène, la notion d’infraction unique, façonnée à l’origine par la Commission, pour appréhender les cartels et dépasser les catégories juridiques de l’entente, est désormais également utilisée pour l’application de l’article 102 TFUE. La notion (...)

1 Sep 2016

Interim relief in EU competition law: A matter of relevance

Jean-Yves Art • Nº 3-2016

Infringement or commitment decision are regularly used by EU jurisdictions to remedy a competition infringement. However, interim measures could sometimes offer a better solution. The Google case is a good example where the possibility of ordering interim measures to remedy the presumptively (...)

1 Sep 2016

EU Net Neutrality policy and the mobile sector: The need for competition law standards

Peter Alexiadis • Nº 3-2016

The TSM Regulation’s much-awaited Net Neutrality rules came into effect in the EU on 30 April 2016, the overarching aim of which is to strike a balance between the interests of end-users and Internet Service Providers. However, in seeking to do so, the TSM Regulation’s normative rules are prone (...)

1 Sep 2016

Big data and competition law in the digital sector: Lessons from the European Commission’s merger control practice and recent national initiatives

Anne-Sophie Perraut, Charlotte Breuvart, Etienne Chassaing • Nº 3-2016 • pp. 41-55

The phenomenon of "big data" has been catching the attention of competition practitioners over the past years, as it challenges (and helps modernize) several traditional tenets of competition law. In this context, the article seeks to provide insights on three speific issues, on the basis of (...)

1 May 2016

The global seed market, competition law and intellectual property rights: Untying the Gordian knot

Alexey Ivanov, Dmitry Katalevsky, Ioannis Lianos • N° 2-2016 • pp. 62-80

The paper explores the competition dynamics of the global seed market. It documents the growth strategies of the major seed companies, in particular their M&A activity and their reliance on complex intellectual property strategies in order to offer a one stop shop solution to farmers. (...)

1^er mai 2016

La notion d’entreprise commune de plein exercice : Analyse comparative des pratiques décisionnelles de l’Union et française

Faustine Viala • N° 2-2016 • pp. 81-91

Plutôt que de procéder à une acquisition ou à une fusion, les entreprises préfèrent souvent la voie de l’entreprise commune ou “joint-venture” souvent plus souple et moins coûteuse pour les acteurs économiques. Or, selon que l’entreprise commune sera considérée de plein exercice ou non, celle-ci ne sera (...)

total	290
total_found	290
time	0.200

Your search returned 290 results Review Articles

Debug

Métas associées