Search

One of the key principles of EU Competition law is a prohibition of the abuse of a dominant position established in the Article 102 of the TFEU. Predatory pricing is one of the forms of the abuse of dominant position. To decide whether the dominant undertaking has referred to predatory pricing it is necessary to check several elements: costs and prices of the dominant undertaking; the possibility to recoup losses; intent; and objective justifications. The Court of Justice, the European Commission and competition institutions in most member states perform extensive analysis of a relationship between costs and prices of a dominant undertaking while dealing with cases on predatory pricing. However, we believe that competition authorities should pay more attention to evaluation and to whether pricing will cause elimination of competitors and damage to consumers. This article critically reviews the framework of the analysis of predatory pricing in the practice of the Court of Justice and the European Commission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In Europe, the legal professional privilege is reserved to outside counselThis creates a multitude of issues, from daily (im)practicalities to questions of fundamental rights [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the relationship between private anti-trust enforcement, at the level of national civil courts, and public anti-trust enforcement, at the level of the European Commission. The European Court of Justice recognized the problem which could arise from conflicts between the Commission's competition law and that of laws enacted at the level of member states, by inviting the national courts to stay their proceedings and await the pending decisions of the Commission. The Commission also reiterates its resolve to avoid conflicts between the national competition authorities (NCA) and courts.

The article offers a look at the major developments and general trends in European Commission (EC) competition law and policy in 2006 through a discussion adopted, as well as the decisional practice of the Commission of the European Communities and the case law of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance during the period. The period is highlighted by the Commission's imposition of fines and penalty payments for infringers of the competition rules, based on the 2006 guidelines. Clarification of various anti-trust concepts such as economic activities of an entity and undertakings under this framework also highlighted in 2006.

The article describes the evolution of the decisional powers in the context of relatively obsolete procedure granted to the European Commission (EC). It explains the evolution of the hearing officer's intervention and the limits to his decisional powers set by Article 163 of EC Treaty, which provides that the Commission itself shall take its decisions by the majority of its members. It relates this description to the findings of the House of Lords' Select Committee on The European Communities in a report on the enforcement of Community competition rules. The article will focus on only one of the Commission's antitrust procedures, Regulation 17/62 and does not intend to describe or to assess the organization and functioning of the Commission's oral hearing in practice.

The article reports on the possible violation of the Microsoft Corp. of the European Union (EU) antitrust laws with the company's efforts to incorporate new security features into its Windows Vista operating system. Microsoft Corp. has asked the European Commission (EC) for specific guidelines but has been denied; EC has asked instead Microsoft to comply with EU competition rules. Microsoft Corp. has been in battle with its competitors as well regarding its desktop placement of Vista's Windows Security Center. The company argues that the product serves as a protection when no other security center is activated.