*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. It is an understatement to say that the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union was expected in the Alrosa case. Beyond the data specific to the dispute at hand, it is much more the scope of the prerogative expressly recognized to the Commission, by Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, to adopt decisions declaring binding commitments that was at stake in this case. case, and, behind it, the very scope of identical prerogatives granted by national legislation to the national authorities of competition, as in the procedure for accepting undertakings from Article L. 464-2 of the French Commercial Code. Furthermore, the application of which
CASE COMMENT: PROCEDURES - COMMITMENTS - PROPORTIONALITY - ABUSE OF DOMINANCE
Commitments: The EU Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court in the diamond case and adopts a variable-geometry interpretation of the proportionality principle (Alrosa)
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.