Global ETD Search

1	Revize aplikace článku 82 - hledání ztraceného ekonomického smyslu / Review of the application of Article 82 - in search of a sound economics Pražský, Ondřej January 2003 (has links) European competition law originated after the end of the Second World War as a part of treaties instrumental to the European integration process and it evolved through secondary law and jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice from an international trade provision into its modern and truly general form. European Commission in it its endeavor to modernize competition law presents a review of the application of Article 82. The goal of the review is to base the policy on a sound economic framework, to aim on effects of abusive conduct rather than on its form and finally to focus mainly on the most important competition problems. This thesis advocates the necessity of an economic analysis while assessing the possible abuse of dominant position in concrete cases and therefore welcomes proclaimed goals of the review. Conversely it criticizes the insufficient fulfillment of these goals, which is in our view, mainly due to misunderstanding of the operation of market mechanism. Economics is in its most generalized form a complex science of purposeful human action. It is therefore not a toolbox, from which one could ad hoc take models or theories in order to assess the abuse of dominant position in real-world cases. This naive approach often leads authorities to make unsound or paradox rulings. We demonstrate the indispensability of correctly understanding the market mechanism in referencing the famous Microsoft case. Industries of the New Economy are characterized by strong network effects and a high portion of fixed costs, which makes the firms often compete "for the market" instead of "on the market". The corollary high market share is not in our view a manifestation of a monopoly position, which could be exploited using monopoly price. Modern economy explains how potential competition forces these highly efficient firms to continuously invest into new technologies and how it pushes down the price of final products. On the other hand, recourse to ad hoc doctrines or non adequate economic models may lead to erroneous assessment of abuse of dominant position.
2	Dominavimo samprata pagal EB Sutarties 82 straipsnį ir jo nustatymo problematika / Dominance under article 82 of the ec treaty and the problems of its finding Kirkaitė, Ieva 24 November 2010 (has links) Santrauka. Dominavimo samprata pagal EB Sutarties 82 straipsnį ir jo nustatymo problematika Šiame magistro darbe nagrinėjama Europos Bendrijos konkurencijos teisėje įtvirtinta dominuojančios padėties koncepcija. Darbo tikslas – atskleisti dominavimo sampratos bei nustatymo ypatumus, identifikuojant dažniausiai sutinkamas problemas. Išskiriami tokie dominavimo tipai, kaip vienasmenis dominavimas, kolektyvinis, bei superdominavimas. Ypatingas dėmesys skiriamas dominavimo koncepcijos plėtojimo tendencijoms, atsižvelgiant į šiuo metu Komisijos pradėtą EB Sutarties 82 straipsnio reformą. Darbe koncentruojamasi į Bendrijos teismų bei Europos Komisijos suformuluotą praktiką šia tema bei galimus taikymo praktikos pasikeitimus. Tačiau kartu vertinamos ir Lietuvos konkurencijos teisėje nusistovėjusios taisyklės, kurios reglamentuoja ūkio subjektų dominavimą. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad Lietuva yra įsipareigojusi suderinti savo nacionalinę teisę su Europos Bendrijos acquis communautaire, įskaitant ir konkurencijos teisės taisykles, siekiant įvertinti, ar Lietuvoje galiojančios konkurencijos teisės normos atitinka Europos Bendrijos taisykles dominavimo padėties aspektu. / Summary. Dominance Under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and the Problems of Its Finding This study is devoted to the analysis of the conception of dominance in the European Community competition law. The objective of this study is to ascertain the main features of the aspects of dominance, including its finding problems. The analysis presents such types of dominance as single dominance, collective dominance and super-dominance. Particular attention is given to the research of the possible changes of the concept of dominance, subject to the process of modernization of application of Article 82 EC. It is concentrated to the practice of the European Community courts and the European Commission. However Lithuanian competition law, which regulates dominance, is also examined. Considering the undertaking to approximate Lithuanian national competition law to acquis communautaire of the European Union, the study labours for answering, whether the competition rules, established in Lithuania correspond to the European Community competition law in the light of dominance. Dominavimas EB Sutarties 82 straipsnis Dominance Article 82 of the EC Treaty
3	The Party is Over and Microsoft Have Lost: The Key Issues and Ramifications of the Microsoft Judgement Guth, Jessica January 2008 (has links) Yes / The Microsoft Case is a battle between Microsoft, the global software giant, and the European Commission. The Commission found Microsoft to be in breach of Arti-cle 82 of the EC Treaty because of their refusal to sup-ply interoperability information in the Work Group Server (WGS) market and tying in Windows Media Player (WMP) with Windows. Microsoft appealed to the Euro-pean Court of First Instance (CFI) where they lost their nine year battle on 17 September 2007. Microsoft will not be appealing the decision1. The case is a modern day David and Goliath with the Commission coming out the champion. This edition of Law in Brief will look at the main outcomes of the decision and its likely impact in particularly on future clashes of competition law and intellectual property law within the European Union (EU). Microsoft European Commission Article 82 Competition Law Intellectual Property European Union
4	Ersättning för ideell skada enligt GDPR : En undersökning av artikel 82 i en svensk kontext / Compensation for non-material damage according to GDPR : An examination of article 82 in a Swedish context Rudén, Fanny January 2019 (has links) The new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes new challenges for both authorities and private actors in ensuring the protection of individuals personal data. With stricter rules comes more responsibility and the risk offacing a civil action for damages. Article 82 in GDPR gives the data subject aright to receive compensation from the controller or processor for any material or non-material damage suffered as a result of an infringement of the regula-tion. The study examines what could constitute a compensable non-material damage and how the compensation could be determined according to Swedish law and EU-law. This is done through the legal dogmatic method. The study finds that a lot of discretion is left up to the member states themselves when it comes to assessing damage. However, “damage” is to be interpreted accordingto the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice and the member states also need to take into account the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. The data subject also has the right to full compensation for the damage suffered and the compensation needs to be proportionate in relation to the damage. It is found that there is no scope for a punitive damage nor is it either possible to delimit the amount of compensation available without regard to the circumstances in each case. When it comes to awarding damages for non-material damage however, it becomes necessary to use flat-rates as long as they are related in a way that takes into consideration the circumstances of each individual case. GDPR Non-material damage EU-law Compensation Article 82 GDPR Ideell skadda EU-rätt Skadestånd Kompensation Artikel 82 Law Juridik
5	Försäkringsskydd för skadeståndsansvar vid dataskyddsöverträdelser : En undersökning av försäkringsvillkorens omfattning och eventuella begränsningar i förhållande till art. 82 GDPR och grupptalan / Insurance coverage for liability in case of data protection breaches : An investigation into the extent and potential limitations of insurance terms in relation to art. 82 GDPR and class action lawsuits Nahlbom, Robin January 2024 (has links) I uppsatsen utreds försäkringsskyddet för skadeståndsansvar vid dataskyddsöverträdelser. GDPR är den centrala regleringen för personuppgiftsbehandling och fastställer ett antal principer som måste upprätthållas för att den ansvarige ska få behandla personuppgifter. Bryter den ansvarige mot förordningens principer har den registrerade rätt att kräva skadestånd enligt art. 82.1 GDPR. Förordningen fastställer tre kumulativa krav som måste vara uppfyllda för att skadeståndsskyldighet ska föreligga. Det innefattar att en överträdelse av GDPR har skett, att materiell eller immateriell skada till följd av denna överträdelse har uppstått och att det föreligger ett orsakssamband mellan skadan och överträdelsen. Förordningen innehåller även en bestämmelse som tar över medlemsstaternas nationella skadeståndsrättsliga bestämmelser, vilket innebär att GDPR ska tillämpas enligt sin ordalydelse och att de kumulativa kraven enligt art. 82.1 GDPR måste följas. Det innebär att nationella skadeståndsrättsliga begrepp inte bör jämställas med begrepp som framgår av art. 82.1 GDPR eftersom begreppen har tillkommit i en helt annan kontext. Exempelvis översätts i vissa fall materiella och immateriella skador till ekonomiska och ideella skador. Begreppen är inte synonyma och bör inte tillställas samma betydelse eftersom terminologin i art. 82.1 GDPR kan misstolkas. Försäkringsvillkoren som reglerar skadeståndsskyldigheten för dataskyddsöverträdelser och som även hänvisar till art. 82.1 GDPR, innehåller i vissa fall nationella skadeståndsrättsliga begrepp och även andra begrepp som inte framgår av förordningen. Det kan leda till att kongruensen mellan villkorens utformning och förordningens ordalydelse medför tolkningsproblematik vid bedömning om skadeståndsskyldighet föreligger. Därför bör försäkringsvillkoren endast innehålla sådan terminologi som framgår av art. 82.1 GDPR. Dataskyddsöverträdelser medför oftast att en stor grupp människor lider skada varför förordningen tillåter registrerade att föra grupptalan med hjälp av en ideell organisation enligt art. 80 GDPR. Teoretiskt sett kan skadeståndsbeloppen bli högre än försäkringsbeloppen varför det i sådana fall saknas ett försäkringsskydd för grupptalan för den personuppgiftsansvarige. Försäkringsvillkoren anger däremot ingenting om att försäkringen inte täcker ett sådant anspråk. Därmed ställs försäkringsbolagen inför utmaningen att hantera sådana anspråk, varför försäkringen bör uppdateras för att möta skadestånd i en grupptalan vid dataskyddsöverträdelser. / The essay investigates insurance coverage for liability for damages in the event of data protection breaches. GDPR is the central regulation for the processing of personal data and establishes a number of principles that must be upheld for the data controller to process personal data. If the data controller breaches the principles of the regulation, the data subject has the right to claim damages under Art. 82.1 GDPR. The regulation sets out three cumulative requirements that must be met for liability for damages to arise. This includes that a breach of the GDPR has occurred, that material or immaterial damage as a result of this breach has arisen, and that there is a causal link between the damage and the breach. The regulation also includes a provision that supersedes the national tort law provisions of Member States, which means that the GDPR shall be applied according to its wording and that the cumulative requirements under Art. 82.1 GDPR must be followed. This means that national tort law concepts should not be equated with concepts as set out in Art. 82.1 GDPR as the concepts have arisen in a completely different context. For example, in some cases, material and immaterial damages are translated into economic and non-economic damages. The concepts are not synonymous and should not be attributed the same meaning as the terminology in Art. 82.1 GDPR can be misinterpreted. The insurance terms and conditions that regulate liability for damages in the event of data protection breaches and also refer to Art. 82.1 GDPR, in some cases contain national tort law concepts and other concepts that are not evident in the regulation. This may lead to a lack of congruence between the wording of the terms and conditions and the wording of the regulation, resulting in interpretation issues when assessing whether liability for damages exists. Therefore, the insurance terms and conditions should only contain terminology as set out in Art. 82.1 GDPR. Data protection breaches usually result in harm to a large group of people, which is why the regulation allows data subjects to bring a collective action with the assistance of a not-for-profit organization under Art. 80 GDPR. Theoretically, damages awarded may exceed insurance coverage, which means there is no insurance coverage for collective actions for the data controller in such cases. However, the insurance terms and conditions do not specify that the insurance does not cover such a claim. Therefore, insurance companies are faced with the challenge of handling such claims, which is why the insurance should be updated to cover damages in a collective action in the event of data protection breaches. GDPR General Data Protection Regulation protection Insurances breach insurance Class action lawsuit terms and conditions Personal data Personal data protection Registered Privacy protection Insurance coverage sum insured Damages compensation Tort law Material damages Immaterial damages Violation Economic loss Insurance company European Union Personal Data Act Data integrity Confidentiality Confidentiality protection Information protection Personal data protection Insurance contract Liability for damages Data controller DPO Data processor Compensation for damages Claim for damages Insurance coverage Principles Data protection principles Compliance Insurance compensation Tort law Regulation Directive Law Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection Data protection officer European Data Protection Board Article 29 workgroup Article Article 82 Data controller responsibility Sanctions Administrative fines Data Protection Directive Artikel 82 GDPR Dataskydd Försäkring Försäkringar Databrottsförsäkring Grupptalan Försäkringsvillkor Personuppgift Personuppgifter Personuppgiftsskydd Registrerad Registrerade Integritetsskydd Försäkringsbelopp Skadestånd Skadeståndslag Materiell Immateriell Kränkning Förmögenhetsskada Försäkringsbolag Dataskyddsförordningen EU Personuppgiftslag Dataintegritet Sekretess Sekretessskydd Informationsskydd Personuppgiftsskydd Försäkringsavtal Skadeståndsskyldighet Skadeståndsansvar Personuppgiftsansvarig Personuppgiftsbiträde Skadeståndsersättning Skadeståndskrav Försäkringsskydd Principer Dataskyddsprinciper Regelefterlevnad Försäkringsersättning Skadeståndslagen Förordning Direktiv Lag Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY Dataskyddsombud Data EDPB Artikel 82 Personuppgiftsansvar Sanktioner Sanktionsavgifter Dataskyddsdirektivet DPO Artikel 82 GDPR Artikel 82 Europeiska unionen Law and Society Juridik och samhälle

1

Page generated in 0.0385 seconds