No description available.

Doctrine of essential facilities under Czech and European law "Essential facilities doctrine" is a term used to describe a set of rules concerned with a dominant undertaking refusing to supply a crucial resource, over which it holds an exclusive control, to its competitors who need the resource to remain in business. This thesis focuses on the doctrine's applications in the context of an abuse of a dominant position, but the role the doctrine plays in regulation of network industries is mentioned as well. The main goal of the thesis is to define conditions under which the owner of the crucial resource - described as "an essential facility" in the thesis - abuses his dominant position by refusing to supply a competitor who is willing to pay a reasonable price for such access. The method primarily used to achieve the goal is a careful analysis of primary legal sources accompanied by studies of the relevant literature. The opinions and conclusions expressed in the afore-mentioned sources are critically evaluated by the thesis's author who presents his own opinions and tries to justify them by legal arguments. Chapter One explains some specific terms used in the text. Chapter Two describes a conflict between two core principles that have to be evaluated when the rules of mandatory access are defined or...

<p>This thesis intends to analyze and clarify the legal position regarding abuse of a dominant position and particularly tying practices. The practice is central within European competition law and has been highly discussed in literature recently. In Article 102 TFEU it is explicitly stated that supplementary obligations which have no connection with the subject of such contracts, shall be considered as a way of abusing a position of strength. Although the method is often reasonable and very common within many business areas, it might be pursued as a tactic of excluding competition. The General Court’s decision in <em>Microsoft </em>led to some confusion as regards to the European approach towards tying practices. Prior to that judgment, the EU Courts appeared quite negative to the practice and seemed determined that the practice was in fact anticompetitive. For an example, in <em>Hilti </em>the Court found it sufficient that the company had deprived its costumers of a choice. The effects on competition were not analyzed in great detail and in most cases the EU Courts fined the undertaking involved in such business methods. However, in <em>Microsoft </em>the General Court took a new approach and focused on the actual effects that followed from the practice. Many argues that European competition law has moved from a <em>per se </em>approach to a <em>rule of reason</em> approach. In my opinion however, it seems relatively unclear whether or not this new approach shall apply to all versions of tying or if it was applied due to the certain circumstances involved in <em>Microsoft</em>. The tying practice involved a form of technical tying, i.e. an integration of two distinctive products. Cases prior to <em>Microsoft </em>mostly concerned a form of contractual tying and were treated very differently by the EU Courts. My opinion on the matter is therefore that it is not possible to declare a clear legal position regarding the practice of tying. There is a need for new judgments and official guidelines since the current situation deprives companies of legal security as concerns the practice of tying within European competition law.</p>

This thesis intends to analyze and clarify the legal position regarding abuse of a dominant position and particularly tying practices. The practice is central within European competition law and has been highly discussed in literature recently. In Article 102 TFEU it is explicitly stated that supplementary obligations which have no connection with the subject of such contracts, shall be considered as a way of abusing a position of strength. Although the method is often reasonable and very common within many business areas, it might be pursued as a tactic of excluding competition. The General Court’s decision in Microsoft led to some confusion as regards to the European approach towards tying practices. Prior to that judgment, the EU Courts appeared quite negative to the practice and seemed determined that the practice was in fact anticompetitive. For an example, in Hilti the Court found it sufficient that the company had deprived its costumers of a choice. The effects on competition were not analyzed in great detail and in most cases the EU Courts fined the undertaking involved in such business methods. However, in Microsoft the General Court took a new approach and focused on the actual effects that followed from the practice. Many argues that European competition law has moved from a per se approach to a rule of reason approach. In my opinion however, it seems relatively unclear whether or not this new approach shall apply to all versions of tying or if it was applied due to the certain circumstances involved in Microsoft. The tying practice involved a form of technical tying, i.e. an integration of two distinctive products. Cases prior to Microsoft mostly concerned a form of contractual tying and were treated very differently by the EU Courts. My opinion on the matter is therefore that it is not possible to declare a clear legal position regarding the practice of tying. There is a need for new judgments and official guidelines since the current situation deprives companies of legal security as concerns the practice of tying within European competition law.

No description available.

The thesis explores the interface between competition law and market integration, in the application of Article 102TFEU. It focuses on ‘market separation’ and addresses conduct that has the intent, or effect, of hindering cross-border trade, either in the form of geographic price discrimination or in the form of exclusionary abuses, in which out-of-State competitors are affected. In doing so, the thesis delves into a comparative analysis of the Treaty requirements under Article 102TFEU when applied in market separation cases and the Treaty requirements under the free movement provisions. It begins with a comparison of the objectives of the two sets of provisions and assesses how their historical link is echoed, presently, in the requirement of ‘effect on trade’ under Article 102TFEU (Chapter I). Following this, the thesis explores the asymmetry as between the addressees of the two sets of provisions (Chapter II). It is argued that ‘undertaking with a dominant position’, as a distinct condition of the application of Article 102TFEU, is the outer limit to any expansive view of direct horizontal applicability of the freedoms. Therefore, alleged market separation by dominant undertakings should be subject to Article 102TFEU alone. Subsequently, the material scope of the prohibitions contained in the two sets of provisions is addressed. Here, it is argued that, in the vast majority of market separation cases, there is nothing special about the interface between competition law and the Internal Market. Rather, the inherent limits of economic integration, as reflected in the notion of trade barriers, should also be taken into account under the enforcement of Article 102TFEU against dominant undertakings (Chapter III). Tensions between competition law and the Internal Market may, nevertheless, arise when non-economic values, as reflected in the notion of justified trade barriers, come into play. In these cases, the interface between competition law and the Internal Market is better conceptualised as a question of unclear attribution of the market distorting effect to the undertaking and/or the State (Chapter IV). A revised defence of shared responsibility for the market separation is proposed, which would render the legality of State intervention under the free movement provisions a necessary condition for the application of Article 102TFEU against the dominant undertaking (Chapters V and VI).

Reference 1 1 Abstract - Abuse of a dominant position and the concept of relevant market The main aim of this thesis was firstly to describe the definition of abuse of dominant position constitute as one of the pillars of competition law (except for agreements distorting competition and illegal merger) and secondly to define the concept of the relevant market in accordance with the interpretation of rules on competition and the case law of the European Commission, the Court of First Instance, European Court Justice and the Office for Protection of the Competition. The introductory chapters I have tried to acquaint potential readers especially with the interpretation of key concepts, facilitating global orientation through the issue of competition and its distortion or restriction. Mainly to work with concepts such as competition, competition law, cartel law, undertaking, company, etc. Without explanation and interpretation of these key concepts could seldom be properly grasp the issue of abuse of dominant position. In the next section, I focus on issues describe the subject of my thesis and a dominant market position and its forms of abuse. A comprehensive interpretation of the issue greatly assists the Community case-law for this purpose I chose the most significant cases clarifying fundamental questions...

Abuse of the Dominant Position by Prohibited Pricing Activities Abstract This thesis analyzes selected pricing practices of dominant undertakings namely predatory pricing, margin squeeze and excessive pricing. These practices may, under certain circumstances, constitute an abuse of the dominant position. The aim of the thesis is to focus on problematic aspects of each of these practices, on explanation of various legal and economic tests used to prove that certain pricing policy constitutes an abuse of dominant position and on the description of conditions that have to be met in order to consider such practice contrary to the competition law of the Czech Republic and the European Union. The thesis is composed of four chapters. In Chapter One a brief introduction to the competition law itself and to the analyzed matter is given. Chapter Two describes basic terminology used when dealing with cases of abuse of a dominant position such as basic legal concept of the abuse itself, definition of an undertaking and a competitor according to the EU law and the Czech law respectively, delimitation of a relevant market and finally definition of a dominant position. Chapter Three is oriented on the selected pricing practices of dominant undertakings. This Chapter is subdivided into three parts each of which is dealing...

De tous les droits de propriété intellectuelle, le droit d’auteur était celui qui semblait le plus éloigné des préoccupations économiques des autorités de concurrence. Conçu à l’origine dans un souci de protection de la création littéraire et artistique, il apparaît aujourd’hui davantage comme un outil de puissance économique tourné vers la protection de l’investissement et, plus généralement, un vecteur de l’activité économique. C’est à ce titre que l’application des règles de concurrence à des pratiques mettant en cause l’exercice ou la gestion de droits d’auteur est désormais considérée comme incontournable. Cette application se doit cependant d’être mesurée. Elle bouscule parfois les principes de la propriété littéraire et artistique et conduit à s’interroger sur une définition plus appropriée des contours de la protection offerte par le droit d’auteur. En outre, la remise en cause, au nom du principe de libre concurrence, de pratiques par ailleurs conformes aux règles du droit d’auteur, n’est pas sans risque. Elle contribue à modeler les contours du droit d’auteur selon une conception propre au droit de la concurrence et peut tendre, parfois, vers un amenuisement des prérogatives des titulaires de droits ou un affaiblissement du niveau de leur protection. À terme, la création pourrait s’en trouver menacée. Il convient donc de rechercher, en toute hypothèse, un équilibre permettant de satisfaire aussi bien à l’exigence de concurrence sur les marchés qu’à l’impératif d’efficacité de la protection du droit d’auteur. / Among all intellectual property rights, copyright seemed to be initially far away from the economic concerns of competition authorities. Originally designed with a view to protecting literary and artistic creation, it now appears more as a tool of economic power turned to investment protection, and, more generally, as a vehicle of economic activity. As such, the application of competition rules to practices based on exercise or management of copyright is now regarded as unavoidable. However, such application must be performed with care and caution as it sometimes bumped into the principles of literary and artistic property and raises questions about a more appropriate definition of the protection offered by copyright. Moreover, the modification of practices complying with copyright rules, in the name of free competition, is not without risk. It leads to draw the outlines of copyright according to considerations designed for competition laws and can aim, sometimes, towards an erosion of the rights of copyright’s owners or a decline of their level of protection. Eventually, creation could be threatened. In any event, it is therefore essential to look for an equilibrium which would satisfy both the requirements and principles of free market competition and the necessity to effectively protect copyright.

The aim of the diploma thesis is a comprehensive analysis of the concept of collective dominance, in particular with reference to the evaluation of its applicability and utility in practice. The first chapter deals with the main features of the oligopoly market and Czech and European legal provisions on the abuse of a dominant position and mergers within which it has evolved. On base of the analysis of Court of Justice and General Court judgements the second chapter explains the notion of the collective dominance and examines the obligatory conditions of the collective dominance, as well as the factors which influence these conditions. The third chapter concerns the concept of collective dominance with regard to competition law taxonomy. It compares not only the test of collective dominance applied pursuant to the article 102 TFEU with the test applied according to the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, but also the concept of collective dominance with the agreements pursuant to the article 101 TFEU. It also deals with abusive practices typical for oligopolies. Beside the explanation of the UK legislation the last two chapters illustrate decisions of competition authorities in the Czech Republic and in the United Kingdom and analyse and compare them. The diploma thesis is concluded by the analysis of main shortcomings of the concept of collective dominance and the evaluation of actual state of the examined topic with the aim to abstractly summarize knowledge gained through the thesis.