Search

Doktrina nujne zmogljivosti je institut konkurenčnega prava, po katerem mora podjetje, ki ima na zgornjem trgu (nujne zmogljivosti) prevladujoč položaj, omogočiti dostop do te zmogljivosti, ki je nepogrešljiva za delovanje na spodnjem, vertikalno povezanem, trgu, tretjim podjetjem, ki želijo na tem trgu delovati. Natančni pogoji za njeno aktivacijo so zaradi nedosledne, čeprav obsežne prakse Evropske komisije in Sodišča Evropske unije nejasni. Prispevek poskuša z analizo nekaterih najpomembnejših sodb s področja doktrine nujne zmogljivosti ugotoviti, katere pogoje morajo za to, da je doktrino mogoče uporabiti, izpolniti posamezne vrste zmogljivosti (materializirane, nematerializirane in pravice intelektualne lastnine). Prav tako pa se tudi opredeli do v literaturi pogostih očitkov, da je praksa Evropske komisije in Sodišča Evropske unije s področja doktrine nujne zmogljivosti samovoljna. Čeprav je praksa resnično nedosledna, pa ni tudi samovoljna, saj jo je treba razumeti v luči spreminjajočih ciljev, ki jih skozi čas zasledujeta konkurenčna politika in konkurenčno pravo. Under the essential facilities doctrine companies with a dominant position on the upstream market of a facility that is an essential input for competition on the downstream market must grant access to that facility (good or service) to companies that want to compete on the downstream market. The exact conditions for the use of the essential facilities doctrine are inconsistent and unclear despite the rich case law from both the European Commission and the European Court of Justice on the topic. Through the analysis of some of the landmark cases concerning the essential facilities doctrine, the article attempts to define which condition different types of facilities (materialised, immaterialised, and intellectual property rights) must fulfil for the essential facilities doctrine to be applied. The article also addresses the critique presented by a considerable number of commentators that the case law of the European Commission and of the European Court of Justice regarding the essential facilities doctrine is arbitrary. Although the case law is indeed inconsistent it is not arbitrary as the changes regarding the goals that competition policy and competition law are pursuing through time must also be considered.

Increased public concerns and stricter regulatory frameworks promote the role of bioliquids (liquid fuel for energy purposes other than for transport, including electricity and heating and cooling, produced from biomass). This is a driving force for development and employment of micro-gas turbines (MGTs) due to their ability to combust bioliquids with less favorable properties in a decentralized manner. Gas turbines are characterized by relatively high combustion efficiency at relatively low concentrations of harmful emissions, relatively high effective efficiency and durability when utilizing a common portfolio of gas turbine approved fuels. It is thus desired to preserve these advantages of gas turbines also while burning bioliquids and further relying on their scalability that is crucial to efficient support of decentralized energy production at small scales. To support these objectives, MGT technology needs to allow for utilization of bioliquids with much wider spectrum of physical and chemical properties compared to common commercially available MGTs in a single MGT-based plant. In this view, the present study is providing the first thorough overview of challenges and solutions encountered by researchers across the wide area of bioliquids in MGTs.