– Présentations PPT : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)
– Vidéo : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (prochainement publiée ci-dessous)
– Audio : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)
– Synthèse : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (prochainement publiée ci-dessus)
– Retranscription : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (prochainement publiée ci-dessus)
– Articles Concurrences (Cliquez sur Voir plus ci-dessous) Consultez la section "Prochaines Conferences" pour vous inscrire aux futurs webinaires.
Torsten Körber gave a brief overview of the German framework. In particular, he made a comparison between Section 19a of the German competition law (ARC), introduced in January 2021, and the DMA. There are some similarities and differences between both texts. Section 19a covers “abusive conduct of undertakings of paramount significance (UPS) for competition across markets”. Section 19a is rooted in competition law, while the nature and objectives of the DMA are opaquer. While contestability and fairness are, indeed, long-standing competition law objectives, the Commission claims that these objectives of the DMA are complementary to, but different from those of competition law. This seems to be intended to allow the Commission to depart from competition law precedents. Körber considers that the DMA should be interpreted and applied as a competition policy tool for legal certainty. Regarding the designation of UPS, Section 19a gives the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) jurisdiction based on qualitative criteria. The DMA, on the other hand, provides in Article 3 that the Commission shall designate access controllers based on quantitative and qualitative criteria.