CASE COMMENTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES - COLLUSIVE PRACTICES - RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION - ROAMING AGREEMENT

Restriction of competition: The European Commission failed to demonstrate why the notified agreement restricted competition in the telecommunications sector (O2)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. CFI, 2 May 2006, O2 v. Commission, Case T-328/03 By its judgment of 2 May 2006, the Court of First Instance confirmed and clarified its case-law M6 v Commission (Case T-185, 216, 299 and 300/00 of 8 October 2002) concerning the nature of the competitive analysis required by the first paragraph of Article 81 EC, as compared with that carried out under the third paragraph of Article 81 EC. Although Community competition law does not contain a rule of reason in the United States of America, the requirement that an agreement must have a real and effective impact on competition is likely to lead to convergent results of analyses. The requirement of a real

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • General Court of the European Union (Luxembourg)

Quotation

Marc van der Woude, Restriction of competition: The European Commission failed to demonstrate why the notified agreement restricted competition in the telecommunications sector (O2), 2 May 2006, Concurrences N° 3-2006, Art. N° 12008, p. 87

Visites 4349

All reviews