Search results - Concurrences

28 May 2019

The Swedish Appeal Court confirms the dismissal of a Competition Authority action against a stock exchange company for alleged abuse of dominant position (Nasdaq)

Tim Kasten • May 2019

On 28 June 2019, the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal (the “Appeal Court”) upheld a ruling of the Swedish Patent and Market Court that rejected an action brought by the Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket or “KKV”) against Nasdaq Stockholm Aktiebolag and several affiliated (...)

1 May 2019

USA/EU: The convergence and specifics of EU competition law and American antitrust law regarding the prohibition of price scissors as constitutive of abuse of dominance

Kane Abry-Diaw de Baye • N° 2-2019

In this paper, the author reports on how the European and American Competition Authorities apprehend margin squeeze, viz. the fact for dominant undertakings operating simultaneously as vertically-integrated entities and as downstream market participants to increase wholesale prices by reducing (...)

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 (...)

18 Apr 2019

Discrimination and Rebates: An overview of EU and national case law

Maria Maher, Lorenzo Vasselli • Rebates

Rebates are a common commercial practice in business and can have efficiency enhancing effects, leading to lower overall prices for customers and consumers. In addition, they might be used to stimulate downstream competition. However, rebates also have the potential to exclude rivals from a (...)

4 Apr 2019

As Efficient Competitor Test: An overview of EU and national case law

Peter Davis • As Efficient Competitor test

Determining the appropriate standards to apply in Article 102 cases involving allegedly exclusionary conduct by a dominant firm continues to provide substantial room for debate between and within the legal and economic communities. However, the nature of the debate has progressed substantially (...)

9 Oct 2018

Spain: The Spanish Supreme Court confirms the appropriateness of a “crossed” test, complementary to the “as efficient competitor” test, to determine the foreclosure effects of an alleged margin squeeze in cases of collective dominance (BT / CNMC, Telefónica, Vodafone, Orange)

Paloma Martínez-Lage Sobredo, Rafael Allendesalazar • N° 1-2019 • pp. 212-214

By Judgment of 9 October 2018, issued in appeal n° 4509/2017, the Supreme Court has confirmed the Judgment of 27 May 2017 of the Audiencia Nacional (appeal nº 263/16) which decided on the appeal by British Telecommunications, PLC and BT España Compañía De Servicios Globales De Telecomunicaciones, (...)

31 May 2018

The Italian Regional Administrative Court of Lazio upholds fine for abuse of dominance in the ice-cream market through rebates and exclusivity clauses (Unilever / Distribuzione Gelati)

Andrea Usai • May 2018

The AGCM fined Unilever Italia Mkt Operations Srl (“Unilever”), which belongs to the Unilever Group and is active in the production and distribution of ice cream, food and home and personal care products, EUR 60.669 million for infringing Article 102 TFEU by putting in place exclusivity clauses (...)

30 May 2018

The EFTA Court clarifies the applicable legal regime for private enforcement and margin squeeze (Fjarskipti / Siminn)

Michele Giannino • May 2018

Following a request for an advised opinion made by an Icelandic judge, the EFTA Court has handed down a judgement in the Fjarskipti v Siminn case touching on some procedural and substantive competition law issues. The EFTA Court clarified which are the rules that in the EFTA legal system apply (...)

17 May 2018

Dominance in the telecom sector

Fayrouze Masmi-Dazi • Telecom & Dominance

Over the last three years, there have been three landmark cases of dominance in the telecom sector in the EU targeting practices undertaken by telecom equipment suppliers: the Huawei/ZTE CJEU judgment in 2015, plus the Intel and Qualcomm decisions sanctioning exclusionary rebates. Given the (...)

17 mai 2018

Abus de position dominante : La Cour d’appel de Paris confirme pour l’essentiel la décision « secteur du zinc » et réduit sensiblement l’amende infligée (Umicore)

Alain Ronzano • N° 3-2018

À la faveur d’un arrêt rendu le 17 mai 2018, la Cour d’appel de Paris est venue confirmer pour l’essentiel la décision n° 16-D-14relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur du zinc laminé et des produits ouvrés en zinc destinés au bâtiment. En dépit de cette confirmation sur l’essentiel, la (...)

5 Apr 2018

Margin squeeze: Recent developments in EU and national case law

Linda Gratz, Theon van Dijk • Margin squeeze

Dominant undertakings, which are active in upstream and downstream markets, can squeeze margins of their downstream competitors by setting a relatively high price upstream (the input costs of their downstream competitors) and a relatively low price downstream. As margin squeeze can lead to (...)

1 Mar 2018

Dominance in the IT sector: An overview of EU and national case law

James S. Venit • IT & Dominance

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 (...)

1 Feb 2018

Intel: The long awaited ECJ ruling

Cristina Caffarra, Damien Neven, David Sevy, Laurence Idot, Marixenia Davilla, Miguel Rato, Paul Lugard • N° 1-2018 • pp. 14-41

It was questionable whether this important judgment would close the debate on the interpretation of Article 102 TFEU. Will it put an end to the controversial and even polemical topics related to the interpretation of Article 102 TFEU and in particular to the debate on the effects-based (...)

13 Dec 2017

The Italian Competition Authority fines several telecom companies for margin squeeze (Telecom Italia / Vodafone)

Tim Kasten • December 2017

On 13 December 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) fined Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“TIM”) and Vodafone Italia S.p.A. (“Vodafone”) € 3.7 million and € 5.8 million respectively for abusing their dominant position on the market for wholesale bulk SMS services. The ICA considered that each mobile (...)

1 Nov 2017

Should antitrust policy protect new entrants?

Liza Lovdahl Gormsen • N° 4-2017

The question if antitrust policy should protect new entrants is related to the schism between “protection of competition” and “protection of competitors” in Article 102 TFEU. As it was not always clear that the aim of Article 102 TFEU was consumer welfare, the US claimed that the EU was not (...)

31 Oct 2017

The Italian Competition Authority fines a company for abuse of dominance in the single-wrapped ice cream market through rebates (Unilever / Distribuzione Gelati)

Carlotta Ienca • October 2017

On 6 December 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”, “Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato”, “AGCM”) sanctioned Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations S.r.l. (“Unilever”) for an abuse of dominant position in the Italian ice cream sector in breach of Article 102 TFUE. After a two-years (...)

6 oct. 2017

Arrêt Intel : Une redéfinition de l’abus de position dominante ?

David Sevy, Etienne Pfister, Sylvain Justier, Theofanis Christoforou

Séminaire Droit et Économie organisé par la Revue Concurrences en partenariat avec Magenta et Compass Lexecon.

28 Sep 2017

Intel : The long awaited ECJ ruling

Cristina Caffarra, Miguel Rato, Nicolas Petit, Richard Whish, Theofanis Christoforou

Law & Economics Workshop organized by Concurrences Review in partnership with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and CRA.

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice annuls a General Court ruling that upheld the fine imposed by the Commission for an abuse of dominance (Intel)

Alexandre G. Verheyden, Bernard Amory, Jurgen Beninca, Laurent de Muyter • September 2017

What happened? The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") set aside a General Court ruling that had upheld a €1.06 billion fine imposed by the European Commission on Intel for abusing its dominant position in the market for x86 central processing units ("CPUs"). Background In its 2009 decision, (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice quashes the 2014 judgment of the General Court that upheld a fine of €1.06 billion for an abuse of dominant position by implementing loyalty rebates based on exclusivity agreements (Intel)

Frederic Depoortere, Giorgio Motta, Ingrid Vandenborre, Simon Baxter • September 2017

On September 6, 2017 ,the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) quashed the 2014 judgment of the General Court (GC) that upheld a fine of €1.06 billion ($1.5 billion) on Intel Corporation Inc. (Intel) for abusing a dominant market position by implementing loyalty rebates based on (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice refers a case back to the General Court for re-examination (Intel)

Ian Giles, James R. Modrall • September 2017

Major victory for Intel as CJEU sends case back to General Court for re-examination* On 6 September, the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice (CJEU), released its long-awaited decision in the Intel case, in which the Commission imposed a fine of €1.06 billion – at the time, the largest fine (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of justice revisits forty years of case law on when a dominant company’s rebate scheme may be abusive (Intel)

Edward William Batchelor, Keith Jones • September 2017

In its ruling on the European Commission’s 500 page Intel decision, in a crisp 150 paragraphs, the EU Court of Justice (the Court) revisited forty years of jurisprudence on when a dominant company’s rebate scheme may be abusive. Though no final decision for Intel, the case marks a potentially (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice endorses an effects-based assessment of rebates (Intel)

Assimakis Komninos, Jacquelyn F. MacLennan, James Killick, Jan Jeram, Jérémie Jourdan, Strati Sakellariou-Witt • September 2017

On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU" or "Court") essentially held in Intel that the European Commission ("Commission") cannot consider rebates, and in particular loyalty rebates, as per se illegal. Rather, the Commission needs to show that a specific rebates (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice issues landmark judgment on legal treatment of fidelity rebates granted by dominant companies (Intel)

Tim Kasten • September 2017

On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) issued its long-awaited judgment in the Intel case (Case C-413/14 P), setting aside the General Court’s (“GC”) judgment. The GC must now re-assess the legality of the Commission’s decision in light of the ECJ’s ruling. Intel was (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice modernizes abuse of dominance (Intel)

François-Charles Laprévote, Maurits Dolmans, Thomas Graf • September 2017

(“CJEU”) set aside General Court’s 2014 Intel judgment, upholding a European Commission (the “Commission”) decision fining Intel €1.06 billion for abuse of dominance through exclusivity rebates . The CJEU held that the General Court had erred in failing to examine all of Intel’s arguments calling (...)

6 sept. 2017

Analyse économique : La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, en Grande Chambre, ouvre le prétoire à l’analyse économique jugeant que, en matière de rabais fidélisants aussi, il faut prendre au sérieux l’analyse des effets d’éviction (Intel)

Anne-Lise Sibony • N° 4-2017 • pp. 90-96

Depuis plusieurs années, l’approche “plus économique” conquiert le droit européen de la concurrence. Après avoir investi le droit des ententes et celui du contrôle des concentrations dans les années 1990, elle a atteint le droit de l’abus de position dominante. La Commission fut la première, en 2009, à (...)

6 sept. 2017

Compétence : La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne conforte la compétence de la Commission européenne pour appréhender des pratiques mises en œuvre en dehors du territoire de l’Union européenne et exige l’enregistrement des entretiens menés dans le cadre de ses enquêtes (Intel)

Alexandre Lacresse • N° 4-2017 • pp. 151-153

Dans cette affaire, la Commission avait sanctionné l’entreprise Intel pour avoir pratiqué deux types de comportements à l’égard de ses partenaires commerciaux, à savoir, d’une part, des rabais conditionnels et, d’autre part, des restrictions dites non déguisées, comme des paiements à la condition de (...)

6 sept. 2017

Abus de position dominante : La Cour de justice de l’Union Européenne précise la jurisprudence issue de l’arrêt Hoffmann-La Roche condamnant les rabais d’exclusivité dans le cas où l’entreprise concernée soutient, au cours de la procédure administrative, éléments de preuve à l’appui, que son comportement n’a pas eu la capacité de restreindre la concurrence et, en particulier, de produire les effets d’éviction reprochés (Intel)

Alain Ronzano • N° 4-2017

C’est peu de dire que l’arrêt rendu le 6 septembre 2017 par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne dans l’affaire C-413/14 (Intel contre Commission européenne) était attendu. A priori, l’attente n’aura pas été vaine. Déjouant les pronostics insistant sur la difficulté qu’elle éprouverait à renverser sa (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice renders its judgment in a case regarding loyalty rebates granted by dominant companies (Intel)

Paul Lugard • September 2017

An alternative view on accuracy and administrability Introduction In its judgment in Intel of 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) rejected the notion that particular loyalty rebates granted by a dominant company are subject to a per se illegality standard of (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice reverses the General Court’s decision in an abuse of dominance case against a big tech company in the market for processors and rules that rebates should be judged under rule of reason (Intel)

Damien Neven, Jorge Padilla • September 2017

Roundtable Discussion on the ECJ ruling in Intel* On 6 September 2017, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued a landmark judgment where it set aside the judgment of the General Court (“GC”) in the highly debated Intel matter. This judgment is of particular significance because it provides (...)

6 Sep 2017

The EU Court of Justice orders new assessment in a case of abuse of dominant position by a semi-conductor company granting loyalty rebates (Intel)

Alec J. Burnside, Anne MacGregor, Mélanie Thill-Tayara, Romain Maulin • September 2017

EU Court Orders New Assessment of Intel’s Rebates The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has quashed a ruling by the EU’s General Court which had upheld the European Commission’s (EC) 2009 finding of abuse of dominance by Intel Corporation Inc. Intel was fined €1.06 billion, a record at (...)

1 May 2017

The Lundbeck case and the concept of potential competition

Derek Ritzmann, Knut Fournier, Niamh Dunne, Sandra Marco Colino, Sofia Païs • N° 2-2017 • pp. 24-50

Antitrust rules have been brought into play in situations whereby a company tries to prevent, or at least delay, the entry into the market of potential competitors. This issue has gained prominence in the context of patents and intellectual property (IP) rights in the pharmaceutical industry. (...)

1 Feb 2017

Intel: Analysing the Advocate General’s opinion

Damien Neven, Nicolas Petit, Pablo Ibáñez Colomo, Sandra Marco Colino • N° 1-2017 • pp. 16-35

The 2009 decision of the EU Commission imposing a €1.06 billion fine on Intel, and the subsequent judgment of the General Court (GC) upholding the decision have sparked an intense debate as to the way Article 102 TFEU should be applied. This On-Topic adds to the fervent discussion with (...)

27 oct. 2016

Intel : Analyse de l’opinion de l’Avocat Général

Damien Neven, Luc Gyselen, Pablo Ibáñez Colomo

Conférence petit-déjeuner organisé par la Revue Concurrences en partenariat avec Arnold & Porter et Compass Lexecon.

20 Oct 2016

The Advocate General Wahl recommends that the EU Court of Justice grant an appeal against the judgement of the General Court, which had upheld a decision of the Commission imposing a fine of € 1.06 billion for abuse of a dominant position (Intel)

Tim Kasten • October 2016

On 20 October 2016, Advocate General Wahl rendered his opinion on Intel’s appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) against the judgement of the General Court, which had upheld a decision of the European Commission of 13 May 2009 imposing a fine of € 1.06 billion for abuse (...)

20 Oct 2016

The EU Court of Justice Advocate General Wahl delivers his opinion in a case regarding rebates and calls for a new approach to Article 102 (Intel)

Edward William Batchelor • October 2016

Call for a common-sense approach to Article 102 - Advocate General Wahl on Intel* If AG Kokott in Post Danmark II was a 102 hawk – ordoliberal-redux, fossilizing form over function, economics on the “too difficult pile” for authorities and courts – then AG Wahl firmly sets out his stall as the 102 (...)

20 oct. 2016

Rabais d’exclusivité : L’avocat général Wahl suggère à la Cour de justice de l’Union Européenne d’exiger que l’atteinte susceptible d’être portée à la concurrence soit appréciée, comme pour les rabais fidélisant, en considération de l’ensemble des circonstances de l’affaire, afin de s’assurer que ces rabais ont produit, selon toute probabilité, un effet d’éviction de la concurrence (Intel)

Alain Ronzano • N° 1-2017

C’est peu de dire que les conclusions de l’avocat général Nils Wahl dans l’affaire C-413/14 (Intel contre Commission européenne) étaient attendues. Au-delà même du fait que l’affaire concerne la plus forte amende jamais imposée par la Commission à une seule entreprise — 1,060 milliard d’euros —, le (...)

1 Sep 2016

Calibration and consistency in Article 102: Effects-based enforcement after the Intel and Post Danmark judgments

Derek Ridyard • Nº 3-2016 • pp. 29-38

The EU’s 2009 Article 102 Guidelines describe an effects-based approach to enforcing the law against dominant firm abuse. However, recent European Court Judgments have taken a more formalistic approach that relies on the case law. Some prominent critics of the Guidelines have argued that this (...)

1 Sep 2016

Rebates: To hell with customers! (New Frontiers of Antitrust, Paris, 13 June 2016)

Andreas Mundt, Julie Vandenbussche, Trevor Soames • Nº 3-2016

Panellists of the fourth roundtable’s of the New Frontiers of Antitrust Conference came back on persistent difficulties to reconcile competition law, particularly Article 102 TFEU enforcement, with economic analysis and a "more effects-based approach". The President of the Bundeskartellamt (...)

27 juin 2016

Standard de la preuve en matière d’abus de position dominante : le test du concurrent aussi efficace

David Spector, Frédéric Marty, Hans Zenger, Olivier Fréget

Déjeuner Droit & Économie organisé par la Revue Concurrences en partenariat avec Fréget—Tasso de Panafieu et MAPP.

22 Jun 2016

The EU Commission’s Dominance Guidance : Towards a review or abandonment?

Miguel de la Mano, Nicolas Petit, Pascale Dechamps, Trevor Soames

Law & Economics Workshop organised by Concurrences Review in partnership with Compass Lexecon, Shearman & Sterling, Brussels and Oxera, Brussels/Paris.

17 Mar 2016

A practical approach in dealing with rebates by dominant suppliers

Edward William Batchelor, Emmanuel Frot, Lourenco Ventura, Svend Albaek

Conference organized by Concurrences Review in partnership with Microeconomix and Baker & McKenzie.

10 Mar 2016

Access to facilities in the telecommunications sector: An overview of EU and national case law

Marco D’Ostuni • Telecom & Access to facilities

Introduction – The Landscape Ensuring third-party access to facilities in the telecommunications sector is a challenge for EU competition law and regulation, which must continuously adapt in a fast-evolving environment. Following the sector liberalization, telephone operators have needed (...)

6 Mar 2016

Postal services and competition law: An overview of EU and national case law

Christos Malamataris, Lars Kjølbye • Postal services

I. Introduction Postal services play a key role in a well-functioning and dynamic EU Single Market and they are of crucial importance to businesses and EU citizens alike. In particular, the parcel sector is experiencing significant growth in terms of volume and plays an important role in the (...)

5 Jan 2016

Dominance in the telecommunications sector: An overview of EU and national case law

Cani Fernández, Irene Moreno-Tapia • Telecom & Dominance

It is an honor for us to write this updated introduction to a special issue on Dominance in the Telecommunications Sector. We welcome this initiative and are grateful to have the opportunity to assess the work of competition authorities in this field over the last 13 years. In addition to (...)

6 oct. 2015

Abus exclusion : La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne refuse de rendre juridiquement obligatoire le critère du concurrent aussi efficace pour l’appréciation des rabais fidélisants (Post Danmark)

Anne-Lise Sibony • N° 1-2016 • pp. 94-98

Était-il besoin de mettre au clair le droit applicable aux rabais fidélisants ? Le tribunal maritime et commercial danois, saisi en cassation d’une affaire relative à des rabais pratiqués par Post Danmark sur des envois en nombre a jugé que tel était le cas. Cette affaire, distincte de celle qui a (...)

6 Oct 2015

The EU Court of Justice confirms “safe harbour” for volume rebates but creates new challenges (Post Danmark II)

David Wood, Peter Alexiadis • October 2015

Rethinking Rebates Policy Under EU Competition Law* On 6 October 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in a case concerning rebates and when they fall foul of EU competition law. Background The case concerns Post Danmark and, unlike appeals against European Commission Decisions, (...)

6 Oct 2015

The EU Court of Justice rules on retroactive loyalty rebates (Post Danmark II)

Frederic Depoortere, Ingrid Vandenborre, Simon Baxter • October 2015

On October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) issued an important judgment clarifying the application of Article 102 to retroactive loyalty rebates (Post Danmark AS, Case C 23/14). The case, which had been referred to the ECJ by the Danish Commercial Court, concerned rebates for (...)

6 Oct 2015

The EU Court of Justice rules on whether a retroactive loyalty rebates scheme is liable to have an exclusionary effect (Post Danmark II)

Miguel Rato, Stephen Mavroghenis, Trevor Soames • October 2015

The EU Court of Justice has handed down its much-awaited preliminary ruling in Post Danmark II . This ruling marks an ‘evolution’ rather than a ‘revolution’ in the assessment of rebates under Article 102 TFEU. While regrettably unclear in certain passages, some aspects of the Court of Justice’s (...)

6 Oct 2015

The EU Court of Justice rules on issues concerning retroactive rebates and the procedures through which these rebates can be characterized as abusive (Post Danmark II)

Daniel Muheme, Maria Tsoukala • October 2015

I. The Parties Post Danmark S/A is a Danish undertaking that provides postal services in Denmark. The undertaking provides postal services and applies uniform tariffs throughout Danish national territory. At the time of the main proceedings, in 2007 and 2008, Post Danmark was controlled by the (...)

total	113
total_found	113
time	0.174

Your search returned 113 results As efficient competitor

Debug

Métas associées