Search

Disagreement abounds on what exactly constitutes an 'abuse' within article 102 TFEU, EU competition law's prohibition of an abuse of a dominant position. This situation is highly undesirable, given the important role this prohibition is expected to play in alleviating concerns about substantial market power and its use in important sectors, typified by actions against 'Big Tech'. This article responds to this problem by analysing and synthesising the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and its evolution to establish the constituent elements of an exclusionary 'abuse'. The article corrects crucial legal misconceptions, including the putative dichotomy between violations 'by object' and 'by effect'; the assumed disparate legal tests for pricing and non-pricing conduct; and the lost distinction between the 'as efficient competitor test' and the 'as efficient competitor standard'. This critical inquiry allows one to draw concrete predictions on the future development of this challenging, yet vital, area of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Apuntes Universitarios: Revista de Investigación is the property of Universidad Peruana Union Filiar Tarapoto 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.)

Knowledge of the metacognitive reading strategy plays an important role in understanding reading and in the educational process. Despite its significance, the metacognitive approach has long been neglected in teaching. The reading comprehension's main role in educational achievement is compounded by this lack of successful metacognitive reading strategy skills. Because of this reason, in this research, the main aim is to investigate the effects of metacognitive reading strategies in English language teaching on students’ attitudes. The model of this research is action research. This research was held with 26 participants, 8th grade students at Mehmet Akif secondary school during the 2nd term of the 2013-2014 academic year in Adana, Turkey. The participants of the research were selected using a convenience sampling strategy. The duration of the research was 10 weeks. The researcher’s diary, semi-structured interviews, and “Reading Strategy Survey” developed by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002) were used as data collection tools. As a result, the research's findings showed that integrating metacognitive reading strategies into English lessons helped students to understand the texts, and they made the reading process easier. This training strengthened the perception of students' reading in a positive way. Therefore, it has been concluded that metacognitive reading techniques in English teaching are effective in reading comprehension attitudes of learner. It is proposed that training in reading strategy should be provided starting from elementary school levels, and teachers should be trained in reading and using strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences is the property of Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences 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.)

A series of private competition law cases in the UK has demonstrated that there are significant procedural issues that need resolving before private enforcement can flourish in the way that the European Commission and the UK Government are currently encouraging. One of these issues is the calculation of the period of limitations in a follow-on case where there are multiple infringers some of whom appeal the infringement decision of the competition authority and some of whom do not. A closely related issue is that of when the underlying infringement decision of the competition authority becomes final and consequently binding on a national court deciding a follow-on case. This has been a recurring problem in the UK in the context of follow-on actions before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) culminating in the Deutsche Bahn decision of the Supreme Court. This article shows that this seemingly simple issue of establishing when a decision becomes final and the calculation of the period of limitations is in fact loaded with serious implications going well beyond a procedural, timing point. Although the issue is pertinent to all types of infringements of competition law with multiple infringers, it has particular implications for leniency recipients in cartel cases and therefore, for the overall relationship between private and public enforcement of competition law. This article demonstrates how suboptimal the current legal situation is and what the overall preferable solution is for establishing when an infringement decision becomes final and the period of limitations in follow-on cases based on infringement decisions in the presence of multiple infringers under UK and EU law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]