Search

The document examines challenges and innovations in telecommunications law, focusing on the European context. It highlights the importance of asymmetric regulation and ex ante identification of enterprises with substantial market power. The 2018 European Electronic Communications Code introduces pivotal changes, including co-investment agreements (Art. 76), aiming to foster cost and risk sharing among operators, benefiting smaller enterprises. Such agreements respond to the need for sustainable competition. Art. 72 introduces a new obligation: access to civil engineering infrastructures. This obligation can extend beyond the traditional market if necessary and proportionate to achieve competition and unhindered access objectives. The document emphasizes the regulations' efforts to balance the interests of economic operators and consumers, promoting competition and innovation in the telecommunications sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Who should be liable for competition law infringements? While the answer should be, in theory, a simple application of the personal liability principle – the infringer pays – the corporate changes that an infringer may undergo in the years necessary to come to an imputation of the infringement make the matter, in practice, significantly more complex. In this article, we first investigate the core of the antitrust liability theories, all to be traced back to the fundamental concept of undertaking, which constitutes their indispensable theoretical background. Then, we will try to provide an answer to the question, by analyzing, on the basis of the case-law, the multifaceted and colourful applications of antitrust liability theories to M&A transactions involving antitrust infringers. Lastly, we lay out practical suggestions which may be useful for companies to minimize the risks of being left with antitrust liability as a result of corporate transactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the interactions between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the laws and competition frameworks of Member States. Specifically, the article sets out three different interpretations on the text of articles 1 (5) and (6) of the DMA, which govern interactions between the DMA and national law and competition policy. The article identifies a narrow, broader, and broadest interpretation of the legal interests protected under the DMA. Each interpretation creates different harmonization effects. The article argues that the narrow and broader interpretations allow for significant divergence between national rules, creating the risk of regulatory fragmentation. The broadest interpretation would allow competition authorities and courts to weigh the interests protected in the DMA against national interests and create greater convergence of laws and competition policy in the Digital Single Market. The article also proposes ways forward for the implementation and enforcement of the DMA and national competition laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Self-preferencing" refers to a conduct of a large provider of core platform services which consists in favouring one's own products and services over those offered by competitors on the same platform. Drawing on the experience acquired through its various antitrust investigations into the conducts of Big Tech, the European Commission, in its its "proposal for the Digital Market Act", has put forward the concept of "gatekeeper". If adopted, this regulatory instrument which aims at ensuring fairness and transparency in the EU digital markets, would enable the Commission to qualify as such any large core platform service on the basis of narrowly defined objectives criteria and submit it to a set of prohibitions and obligations. By opting for such an approach, the Commission would be able to switch from an ex-post assessment of a gatekeepers' self-preferencing practices to an ex-ante one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the principle of sincere cooperation in the antitrust enforcement field by analysing its two dimensions: the first one between public and private enforcement, the second one between the different actors of public enforcement. In particular, the article will consider, on the one hand, the cooperation between public enforcement by competition authorities (Commission and NCAs) and private enforcement by national courts envisaged by Regulation 1/2003 and by the Damages Directive and, on the other hand, the cooperation amongst competition authorities provided by Regulation 1/2003 and by the ECN+ Directive, with the aim of demonstrating how both dimensions of the principle of sincere cooperation play an essential role in order to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of antitrust enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EU competition law appears to interpret fairness in B2B trade relations as "equal opportunities to trade" for market actors. A positive and pragmatic inquiry into the relevant regulations, cases and doctrines support that approach. This contribution suggests a new definition for these practices under EU competition law. Accordingly, any trade practice representing supremacy in bargaining power - usually dominance - and distorting the equal opportunity to trade of one or more trading partners could be conceived as unfair trade practices (UTPs) under EU competition law. Thus, these practices restrict competition according to EU competition law. Indeed, the EU Commission, Parliament and many Member States have emphasized the restrictive effects of UTPs even when practised by non-dominant undertakings. UTPs could include all kinds of trade practices toward trading partners, regardless of the industry and environment in which they occur, whether online or offline. This definition can also relieve competition lawyers from inefficient exploitative/exclusionary abusive conduct divisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]